tool.poetry section should be optional

[silverwind]

• I have searched the issues of this repo and believe that this is not a duplicate.
• I have searched the FAQ and general documentation and believe that my question is not already covered.

Feature Request

The tool.poetry section and specifically the keys name, version, descriptions and authors of a pyproject.toml are mandatory for poetry, but they are just useless for projects that use poetry to run only command-line python tools and which do not intend to publish as a PyPi module. For comparison, for package.json the minimal format is

{
  "dependencies": {
    "module": "1.0.0"
  }
}

I would like to see poetry adapt a similar minimal syntax for the pyproject.toml:

[tool.poetry.dependencies]
python = "^3.11"
module= "1.0.0"

[dimbleby]

build-system is not a thing that poetry cares about, if you're ok with pip install not working for your project then you can leave it out.

Since the things you want to omit are automatically filled in by poetry new or poetry init, it's hard to get excited about micro-optimisations around omitting them for some projects - and I'd bet on doing so causing more confusion than anything else.

[silverwind]

True, it works without build-system (pip is not needed and in fact, I set no-pip already in poetry.toml), so I'll edit the description that this is only about the 4 fields name, version, descriptions and authors without which poetry refuses to run.

I prefer to keep things minimal. I initialize a npm package with echo '{}' > package.json, and it would be nice if I can init a poetry project with echo '[tool.poetry.dependencies]\npython = "^3.11"'.

[dimbleby]

I see from the linked MR that you are using poetry in https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/3ee8970419bb62c6d508b37b02f8fcbacf2f8590/pyproject.toml, to install one dev dependency only. Frankly this seems an odd use of poetry - instead of asking people to install poetry, you might as well ask them to install djlint in the first place!

More broadly this is basically a duplicate of #1132 asking for non-package mode. Suggest you add further comments there and close this as a duplicate - though the great age of that one should be a hint as to how likely it is that anything will happen here.

[silverwind]

Frankly this seems an odd use of poetry

What's so odd about it? I want to run a python tool in a non-python project, with the benefits of a virtualenv and a lockfile. I think this is a very common use case.

[dimbleby]

we're getting off-topic, my fault, please close this as a duplicate of #1132

[silverwind]

More broadly this is basically a duplicate of #1132 asking for non-package mode

Does it really warrant the complexity of a new "mode"? Why not just support such a minimal format?

[silverwind]

Yeah I see #1132 is closely to what I'm requesting, will continue there.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.