Switch to uv pip compile

[CoolCat467]

This pull request follows up on #2956 and is attempting to switch the continuous integration system to use astral.sh' new tool uv.
This particular pull request is a subset of #2957 and is in charge of only replacing pip-compile.

This seems nontrivial, can we break this into 2 prs?

1. replace pip-compile

2. replace pip install

Personally I see (1) as much more valuable-- (2) doesn't change much. Personally I'm more excited by uv's ability to get the lowest compatible version so we can add a new CI run than by it replacing pip install.

Originally posted by @A5rocks in #2957 (comment)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.63%. Comparing base (e87dc46) to head (1748ca9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2958   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.63%   99.63%           
=======================================
  Files         117      117           
  Lines       17598    17598           
  Branches     3171     3171           
=======================================
  Hits        17533    17533           
  Misses         46       46           
  Partials       19       19           

[A5rocks]

Could you update autodeps too?

[A5rocks]

Huh, this change seems bugged

[CoolCat467]

Made a bug report astral-sh/uv#1429

[A5rocks]

This change too seems wrong

[jakkdl]

I think it's intended, as we specify --python-version=3.8. If we generate separate test-requirements-pyXX.txt files for each python version we test we'll only get exceptiongroup in the ones that are <3.11

[jakkdl]

So I think that means we should have a requirements directory wherein we generate txt files for all versions we test.

[T-256]

Are these expected? or missing compatibility from uv?

[CoolCat467]

uv doesn't appear to explicitly list the fact a dependency is requested from the .in file, which kind of makes sense. If nothing is listed as a what required that module, why waste text? It also makes it more immediately clear when something is a requirement of another package.

Additionally, uv hasn't explicitly said that they are trying to have 100% compatibility for these compiled files, and I personally am for this particular change differing from pip-compile.

[T-256]

If nothing is listed as a what required that module, why waste text?

It'd make senses when multiple .in passed for single output.
Also, it'd be increasing readability for recognizing top-level requirements.

[T-256]

@charliermarsh Do you think this is compatibility problem and need to open issue for it? or this is by design/not planned?

[T-256]

nvm. found the issue: astral-sh/uv#1343