My generated

sdist

doesn't contain any sources. Any ideas of what could be the problem? I have the

python_sources

target defined...

Assuming you have `python_sources`in your build file, the

.py

files in that folder -should- be picked up. That's not happening?

No, it is not...

And nothing nested, correct? Just sibling files to the BUILD?

src/python/my_package/BUILD

python_distribution(
    name="dist",
    dependencies=["src/python/my_package"], <--- Need this or no sources are included in the sdist
    provides=python_artifact(
        name="my_package",
        version="0.1.0",
    ),
)

python_sources()

Oh, sorry, I mis-understood. I thought you meant

python_sources

wasn't working. The dependency makes sense

Yeah, but it feels weird to include its own sources as dependencies, no?

https://www.pantsbuild.org/docs/reference-python_distribution#codedependenciescode Reading this, I think the only way it would pick anything up automatically is if there was some dependencies that could be inferred? But, other than folder location, is there anything else it could infer from? Like a setup.py or something I guess... ?

Humm, not clear in my head, but you're probably right. I'm still learning

pants

and I don't understand all its concepts yet...

I've been using pants for a while, contributed some stuff, and I'm still trying to understand a lot too 🙂

The way to think about it is: The

python_sources

is what owns the sources. The

python_distribution

is a layer on top that says, "package these sources into a distribution". There is no way to infer what "these sources" are.

As you said, the

python_sources

own the sources. If there's a

python_distribution

inside the same BUILD file, why it cannot package those sources into the distribution?

As you said, the python_sources own the sources. If there's a python_distribution inside the same BUILD file, why it cannot package those sources into the distribution?

It could if we assumed that a

python_distribution

by default depends on any sibling

python_sources

, without an explicit dep. But we've just not made that assumption in the past...

I think it's a risky assumption to make for something that will be published/exported/produced - I feel like that should undergo some rigour to see what should be packaged inside

Yeah, the consequences of publishing code you didn't mean to publish are not great, because it's hard to unpublish