uv-resolver: error on unconditional conflicting extras

If we don't do this, then it would be like permitting
`uv sync --extra x1 --extra x2` even when `x1` and `x2` are declared as
conflicting.

Technically, we should only report an error when 2 or more conflicting
extras are unconditionally enabled. Instead, here, we report an error
if just 1 is found. The reason is that it seems tricky to detect all
possible cases of 2 or more since I believe it would require looking at
the full dependency tree.

Author: BurntSushi

crates/uv-resolver/src/error.rs

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ use tracing::trace;
 use uv_distribution_types::{
     BuiltDist, IndexCapabilities, IndexLocations, IndexUrl, InstalledDist, SourceDist,
 };
-use uv_normalize::PackageName;
+use uv_normalize::{ExtraName, PackageName};
 use uv_pep440::{LocalVersionSlice, Version};
 use uv_static::EnvVars;
 
@@ -41,6 +41,13 @@ pub enum ResolveError {
     #[error("Attempted to wait on an unregistered task: `{_0}`")]
     UnregisteredTask(String),
 
+    #[error("Found conflicting extra `{extra}` unconditionally enabled in `{requirement}`")]
+    ConflictingExtra {
+        // Boxed because `Requirement` is large.
+        requirement: Box<uv_pypi_types::Requirement>,
+        extra: ExtraName,
+    },
+
     #[error("Overrides contain conflicting URLs for package `{0}`:\n- {1}\n- {2}")]
     ConflictingOverrideUrls(PackageName, String, String),
 

crates/uv-resolver/src/resolver/mod.rs

@@ -1333,6 +1333,18 @@ impl<InstalledPackages: InstalledPackagesProvider> ResolverState<InstalledPackag
                     }
                 };
 
+                if let Some(err) =
+                    find_conflicting_extra(&self.conflicting_groups, &metadata.requires_dist)
+                {
+                    return Err(err);
+                }
+                for dependencies in metadata.dependency_groups.values() {
+                    if let Some(err) =
+                        find_conflicting_extra(&self.conflicting_groups, dependencies)
+                    {
+                        return Err(err);
+                    }
+                }
                 let requirements = self.flatten_requirements(
                     &metadata.requires_dist,
                     &metadata.dependency_groups,
@@ -3075,3 +3087,36 @@ impl PartialOrd for Fork {
         Some(self.cmp(other))
     }
 }
+
+/// Returns an error if a conflicting extra is found in the given requirements.
+///
+/// Specifically, if there is any conflicting extra (just one is enough) that
+/// is unconditionally enabled as part of a dependency specification, then this
+/// returns an error.
+///
+/// The reason why we're so conservative here is because it avoids us needing
+/// the look at the entire dependency tree at once.
+///
+/// For example, consider packages `root`, `a`, `b` and `c`, where `c` has
+/// declared conflicting extras of `x1` and `x2`.
+///
+/// Now imagine `root` depends on `a` and `b`, `a` depends on `c[x1]` and `b`
+/// depends on `c[x2]`. That's a conflict, but not easily detectable unless
+/// you reject either `c[x1]` or `c[x2]` on the grounds that `x1` and `x2` are
+/// conflicting and thus cannot be enabled unconditionally.
+fn find_conflicting_extra(
+    conflicting: &ConflictingGroupList,
+    reqs: &[Requirement],
+) -> Option<ResolveError> {
+    for req in reqs {
+        for extra in &req.extras {
+            if conflicting.contains(&req.name, extra) {
+                return Some(ResolveError::ConflictingExtra {
+                    requirement: Box::new(req.clone()),
+                    extra: extra.clone(),
+                });
+            }
+        }
+    }
+    None
+}

crates/uv/tests/it/lock.rs

@@ -3243,6 +3243,142 @@ fn lock_conflicting_extra_config_change_ignore_lockfile() -> Result<()> {
     Ok(())
 }
 
+/// This tests that we report an error when a requirement unconditionally
+/// enables a conflicting extra.
+#[test]
+fn lock_conflicting_extra_unconditional() -> Result<()> {
+    let context = TestContext::new("3.12");
+
+    let root_pyproject_toml = context.temp_dir.child("pyproject.toml");
+    root_pyproject_toml.write_str(
+        r#"
+        [project]
+        name = "dummy"
+        version = "0.1.0"
+        requires-python = "==3.12.*"
+        dependencies = [
+          "proxy1[project1,project2]"
+        ]
+
+        [tool.uv]
+        conflicting-groups = [
+          [
+            { package = "proxy1", extra = "project1" },
+            { package = "proxy1", extra = "project2" },
+          ],
+        ]
+
+        [tool.uv.sources]
+        proxy1 = { path = "./proxy1" }
+
+        [build-system]
+        requires = ["hatchling"]
+        build-backend = "hatchling.build"
+
+        "#,
+    )?;
+
+    let proxy1_pyproject_toml = context.temp_dir.child("proxy1").child("pyproject.toml");
+    proxy1_pyproject_toml.write_str(
+        r#"
+        [project]
+        name = "proxy1"
+        version = "0.1.0"
+        requires-python = "==3.12.*"
+        dependencies = []
+
+        [project.optional-dependencies]
+        project1 = ["anyio==4.1.0"]
+        project2 = ["anyio==4.2.0"]
+        "#,
+    )?;
+
+    uv_snapshot!(context.filters(), context.lock(), @r###"
+    success: false
+    exit_code: 2
+    ----- stdout -----
+
+    ----- stderr -----
+    error: Found conflicting extra `project1` unconditionally enabled in `proxy1[project1,project2] @ file://[TEMP_DIR]/proxy1`
+    "###);
+
+    // An error should occur even when only one conflicting extra is enabled.
+    root_pyproject_toml.write_str(
+        r#"
+        [project]
+        name = "dummy"
+        version = "0.1.0"
+        requires-python = "==3.12.*"
+        dependencies = [
+          "proxy1[project1]"
+        ]
+
+        [tool.uv]
+        conflicting-groups = [
+          [
+            { package = "proxy1", extra = "project1" },
+            { package = "proxy1", extra = "project2" },
+          ],
+        ]
+
+        [tool.uv.sources]
+        proxy1 = { path = "./proxy1" }
+
+        [build-system]
+        requires = ["hatchling"]
+        build-backend = "hatchling.build"
+
+        "#,
+    )?;
+    uv_snapshot!(context.filters(), context.lock(), @r###"
+    success: false
+    exit_code: 2
+    ----- stdout -----
+
+    ----- stderr -----
+    error: Found conflicting extra `project1` unconditionally enabled in `proxy1[project1] @ file://[TEMP_DIR]/proxy1`
+    "###);
+
+    // And same thing for the other extra.
+    root_pyproject_toml.write_str(
+        r#"
+        [project]
+        name = "dummy"
+        version = "0.1.0"
+        requires-python = "==3.12.*"
+        dependencies = [
+          "proxy1[project2]"
+        ]
+
+        [tool.uv]
+        conflicting-groups = [
+          [
+            { package = "proxy1", extra = "project1" },
+            { package = "proxy1", extra = "project2" },
+          ],
+        ]
+
+        [tool.uv.sources]
+        proxy1 = { path = "./proxy1" }
+
+        [build-system]
+        requires = ["hatchling"]
+        build-backend = "hatchling.build"
+
+        "#,
+    )?;
+    uv_snapshot!(context.filters(), context.lock(), @r###"
+    success: false
+    exit_code: 2
+    ----- stdout -----
+
+    ----- stderr -----
+    error: Found conflicting extra `project2` unconditionally enabled in `proxy1[project2] @ file://[TEMP_DIR]/proxy1`
+    "###);
+
+    Ok(())
+}
+
 /// Show updated dependencies on `lock --upgrade`.
 #[test]
 fn lock_upgrade_log() -> Result<()> {