Add UV support for faster development workflows

[EstebanGZam]

This PR implements UV as the primary package manager for the project, addressing issue #64. UV delivers significant improvements in dependency resolution speed (10-100x faster than pip) and simplifies local development setup.

Key Changes:

1. Project Modernization

   • Migrated from setup.py to pyproject.toml with all metadata preserved
   • Generated uv.lock for reproducible environments
   • Added clear documentation in README.md for UV usage

2. New Workflow Features

   # 1. Setup environment
   uv venv venv
   source venv/bin/activate
   
   # 2. Install with all dependencies
   uv pip install -e .
   uv pip install -e ".[dev,test]"
   
   # 3. Run tests
   uv pip install coverage
   uv run --active coverage run -m unittest discover -s tests -p 'test_*.py'
   uv run --active coverage report -m

Benefits:

• ⚡ Faster onboarding: New contributors can setup environments in seconds
• 📦 Consistent installations: Precise dependency resolution avoids "works on my machine" issues
• 🧪 Efficient testing: uv run executes tests with minimal overhead

Verification:

• Confirmed all unit tests pass with the new UV workflow
• Verified coverage reporting works as expected

Resolves #64

[VigneshVSV]

Hi, I will get to this in a day or two max.

[VigneshVSV]

I would add this:

Benefits:
⚡ Faster onboarding: New contributors can setup environments in seconds
📦 Consistent installations: Precise dependency resolution avoids "works on my machine" issues
🧪 Efficient testing: uv run executes tests with minimal overhead

to changelog.md. Nice emojis.

Also can you bump the version to 0.2.11? I will do a test deployment to testpypi.org

The files to change are the pyproject.toml and the __init__.py within hololinked folder.

[EstebanGZam]

I understand. I'll start working on these revisions in the next few days.

Regarding the section on support for simulation examples mentioned in the issue:

"if examples are supported, that is even better (at least for the simulations)"

I acknowledge that I haven't been able to implement this part as I would need more clarity on the specific requirements. To ensure proper implementation, I propose:

1. Open a new issue dedicated exclusively to this feature.
2. Define the implementation details there (optional dependencies, expected structure, etc.).
3. Work on it as the next priority.

This way, we can manage example dependencies in a more organized manner and with clear expectations.

What do you think of this approach? I'm open to adjusting it based on what you consider most appropriate.

[VigneshVSV]

1. Open a new issue dedicated exclusively to this feature.
2. Define the implementation details there (optional dependencies, expected structure, etc.).
3. Work on it as the next priority.

This way, we can manage example dependencies in a more organized manner and with clear expectations.

Agree! Lets just keep this for another issue. I also worked on something in uv last week at my workplace and things were not so easy. I will open a new issue coming weekend.

[VigneshVSV]

Hi @EstebanGZam,

I have completed my comments, sorry the delays. There is nothing more to add from my side.

Thanks again for this merge request.

[VigneshVSV]

I merged this pull request: #73

You need to

git checkout main
git pull
git checkout <this branch>
git rebase main

If conflicts occur while rebasing, choose which changes to keep, then

git add <file names that were resolved>
git rebase --continue

finally, when rebase finishes, which you will see in git status:

git push -f

If you need more help, just let me know. There are only two commits, so it should be fairly straightforward.

[VigneshVSV]

Hi @EstebanGZam ,

Would you be still interested to continue this or should I take it further? I can merge it another branch.

[VigneshVSV]

Merged to main using #83 where the comments were resolved.