Am I reading https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/issues/16602 right that today if I want some of my code to depend on the 3rd party python package

foo[bar]

, other code to depend on

foo[bar,bax]

and yet other code to depend on

foo[qux]

, then those dependencies need to be in separate resolvers?

I don't think you are. If the requirement you write down contains all extras needed by your repo - the union - then everything should just work,

ah. In my case I was trying to have a

pex_binary

depend on

'3rdparty/py:reqs#foo[bar]

which gives "ValueError: The explicit dependency ... does not provide enough address parameters to identify which parametrization of the dependency target should be used." But in the more typical case where it is 1st party code doing the depending I can have `foo[bar,bax,qux]>=1.0`` and inferred dependencies on

foo

will only use the needed extras and not the full union?

Hmm, I have no clue what that error message is about. Do you currently use 1 resolve or many?

Several. With less made up example reqs of

feast[aws,snowflake]==0.25.0

and this

pex_binary(
    name="feast-cli",
    entry_point="feast.cli:cli",
    dependencies=['3rdparty/py:reqs#feast[aws]'
                  ],
    resolve="feast_demo"
)

gives

15:59:12.84 [ERROR] 1 Exception encountered:

Engine traceback:
  in `run` goal

ValueError: The explicit dependency `3rdparty/py:reqs#feast[aws]` of the target at `src/docker/feastui:feast-cli` does not provide enough address parameters to identify which parametrization of the dependency target should be used.
Target `3rdparty/py:reqs` can be addressed as:
  * 3rdparty/py:reqs
  * 3rdparty/py:reqs#feast
  * 3rdparty/py/requirements.txt:reqs

My interpretation of which is that the

[]

syntax is not understood by

dependencies=

What version of Pants is in play here?

"2.16.0.dev5"

Ok, and feast_demo has the feast[x,y,z] requirement, right?

Correct

$ cat 3rdparty/py/requirements.txt 
# TODO: Clarify targets per extra?
feast[aws,snowflake]==0.25.0

I think this is almost certainly a bug in Pants. It probably handles extras naively / not at all and neglects to expand such a requirement to its powerset before doing further calculations. That was a bug of omission in Pex itself a long time ago.

+1 for John’s conclusion, I don’t think Pants treats extras beyond the requirements.txt and lockfile. (i.e. you can’t name the extras you need in your dependency)

Tried to write this up at https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/issues/18091