[MNT] makefile for developers

[tschm]

• adds a makefile for developers
• fixes some issues with the README CI

[tschm]

@fkiraly I am a big fan of task, see https://taskfile.dev/. Here we expose a make install-task. Task is like make on steroids.

[tschm]

Various other jobs will be added to the Makefile

[fkiraly]

Nice!

Could you kindly explain this to me like I am 5 year old, who would use the task framework under which circumstances?

Do we intend this to be purely developer facing?

[fkiraly]

Another note, also discussed in #658 - make is not operating system independent, so it will fail on some operating systems. We should ensure that the workflows we design work under a broad set of system conditions.

[tschm]

@fkiraly task is used by make and could also be used by the user directly. However, I tend to abstract it away by a layer of make above. I am aware make is not system independent but even the Windows users can make it happen. I think the best chance of using that kind of functionality.

[tschm]

task is also used at various places in the ci/cd framework without using make in between

[fkiraly]

If we want to use make, then imo only in the CI. We should not make make a required dependency in our basic user facing workflows, since it is not operating system independent.

It is true that, for instance, windows users can set it up, but it is behind a wall of complexity that we cannot assume users will get through just to run our code.

[tschm]

I have no problem to hit dem directly with uv and uvx. I see make as only one way into the project. There are other routes, e.g. task or directly from the command line with uv tools

[fkiraly]

hm, ok - but then we need to document all this.

(I think it is "going too deep" in the task/make layer, but if you would like this, I would not mind - as long as you document it for other devs)

[88d52bdba0366127fffca9dfa93895]

I think it is too complicated for both the users and us. The code should be short and easy to read, the installation should be simple, and the dependencies should be kept to a minimum

[tschm]

I think it is too complicated for both the users and us. The code should be short and easy to read, the installation should be simple, and the dependencies should be kept to a minimum

I recommend to checkout the branch and then hit it with "make". This functionality is not part of the "release" as in release of the package. But it can be very helpful during local development.

[tschm]

The installation is actually as easy as "make install" after your git clone. Make install installs task + uv/uvx. It then creates a virtual environment (using uv). "make test" would run all those tests defined and "make fmt" would run ruff etc. Task is somewhat obsolete as all this functionality could be hidden in Makefiles but Makefiles are just too hard to deal with in 2025.

[fkiraly]

I think it is too complicated for both the users and us. The code should be short and easy to read, the installation should be simple, and the dependencies should be kept to a minimum

I agree with @88d52bdba0366127fffca9dfa93895 that developer workflows should be simple and easy to understand for a widely used open source package.

I agree with @tschm on the more general point that a makefile is useful and helpful as it is a standard - although I also think in the current form it feels a bit overcomplicated.

Could we reach a middle ground where we simplify the makefile and minimize its dependencies on external tools, e.g., task, and use only basic python and pytest commands?

[tschm]

@fkiraly This is now a minimal version completely without task.

[fkiraly]

Very nice!

Happy to merge once you fix the merge accident in pyproject.toml.

[tschm]

The broken tests are unrelated to this merge request. Main is currently broken

[fkiraly]

Thanks for the fixes!