Initial support for reading mapping configuration as TOML

[akx]

This PR offers to implement part of #777.

Namely, following this PR you would be able to run pybabel extract -F babel.toml – or even pybabel extract -F pyproject.toml, as we already will support tool.babel as well as babel for the namespace. (Auto-detecting a pyproject.toml instead of setup.cfg or babel.cfg is not implemented in this PR.)

I'm requesting comments on the proposed TOML format, which borrows the idea of mappings-as-lists from Mypy's overrides configuration.

[babel.extractors] custom = "mypackage.module:myfunc"# Python source files [[babel.mappings]] method = "python"pattern = "**.py"# Genshi templates [[babel.mappings]] method = "genshi"pattern = "**/templates/**.html"include_attrs = "" [[babel.mappings]] method = "genshi"pattern = "**/templates/**.txt"template_class = "genshi.template:TextTemplate"encoding = "latin-1"# Some custom extractor [[babel.mappings]] method = "custom"pattern = "**/custom/*.*"

[akx]

cc @Zharktas, @tomasr8, @eemeli – please weigh in if you have ideas :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.30435% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.22%. Comparing base (d3346ee) to head (a820cf5).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
babel/messages/frontend.py	91.30%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1108 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 91.21% 91.22% +0.01%  ========================================== Files 27 27 Lines 4496 4561 +65 ========================================== + Hits 4101 4161 +60 - Misses 395 400 +5 

Flag	Coverage Δ
macos-12-3.10	90.02% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
macos-12-3.11	89.95% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
macos-12-3.12	90.13% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
macos-12-3.13-dev	89.65% <86.95%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
macos-12-3.8	89.95% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
macos-12-3.9	89.95% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
macos-12-pypy3.10	?
ubuntu-22.04-3.10	90.04% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
ubuntu-22.04-3.11	89.98% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
ubuntu-22.04-3.12	90.15% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
ubuntu-22.04-3.13-dev	89.67% <86.95%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
ubuntu-22.04-3.8	89.97% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
ubuntu-22.04-3.9	89.97% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
ubuntu-22.04-pypy3.10	90.04% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
windows-2022-3.10	90.16% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
windows-2022-3.11	90.10% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
windows-2022-3.12	90.27% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
windows-2022-3.13-dev	89.79% <86.95%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
windows-2022-3.8	90.09% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
windows-2022-3.9	90.09% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
windows-2022-pypy3.10	90.16% <91.30%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[akx]

Oh, and cc @miigotu too of course as the opener of #777 😄

[tomasr8]

Looks great! I was just wondering how you can specify ignore paths. Would this work?

[[babel.mappings]] method = "ignore"pattern = "test/*"

Can the pattern be a list?

[akx]

Looks great! I was just wondering how you can specify ignore paths.

By not specifying them in a mapping at all... 😅 There's also the command-line --ignore-dirs option for wholesale directory ignoring.

But if your imagined use-case is "extract from all HTML files with jinja2, but never extract anything from test*.html", that would be a separate issue. Perfectly doable with a no-op extractor (that we don't yet have), since the list of mappings is in priority order, but that'd also work for .cfg style mapping files.

Can the pattern be a list?

Might as well support that too!

[tomasr8]

But if your imagined use-case is "extract from all HTML files with jinja2, but never extract anything from test*.html", that would be a separate issue. Perfectly doable with a no-op extractor (that we don't yet have)

I'm a bit tired so maybe I missed something, but there already exists a noop extractor - extract_nothing so for example this cfg currently works as expected:

[ignore:**/*_test.py] [python:**.py]

My previous question was about whether this will keep working with toml and I just confimed that it does i.e. this works:

[[babel.mappings]] method = "ignore"pattern = "**/*_test.py" [[babel.mappings]] method = "python"pattern = "**/*.py"

[AA-Turner]

Entirely unsolicited, but an option might be:

[extractors] custom = "mypackage.module:myfunc"# Python source files [[mappings.python]] pattern = "**.py"# Genshi templates [[mappings.genshi]] pattern = "**/templates/**.html"include_attrs = "" [[mappings.genshi]] pattern = "**/templates/**.txt"template_class = "genshi.template:TextTemplate"encoding = "latin-1"# Some custom extractor [[mappings."customextractor"]] pattern = "**/custom/*.*"

This makes it clearer when scanning the file which table is for which method -- something the current .cfg file does well at. I would also drop the babel. prefix for the babel.toml file -- it is needlessly explicit (see e.g. .ruff.toml which drops the full tool.ruff prefix).

A

[akx]

I'm a bit tired so maybe I missed something, but there already exists a noop extractor - extract_nothing so for example this cfg currently works as expected:

My bad, it's not you being tired. I had forgotten there's a special if method == 'ignore': case in extract_from_file that handles that (as well as the 'ignore': extract_nothing case in _BUILTIN_EXTRACTORS)...

[akx]

Entirely unsolicited,

Not at all, thank you for the input! Much appreciated.

but an option might be: ...

I'm not completely sold on that – feels like it becomes too easy to accidentally do [mappings.python] if you expect to only have a single mapping for python, and you'd then get a (possibly inscrutable) parsing type error.

I would also drop the babel. prefix for the babel.toml file -- it is needlessly explicit (see e.g. .ruff.toml which drops the full tool.ruff prefix).

That's probably a good idea.

[AA-Turner]

I'm not completely sold on that – feels like it becomes too easy to accidentally do [mappings.python] if you expect to only have a single mapping for python, and you'd then get a (possibly inscrutable) parsing type error.

I think this is a problem regardless. For example this PR adds a config file with one entry, [jinja2: **.html]. Someone without knowledge of TOML's quirks might write

[mapping] method = "jinja2"pattern = "**.html"

which looks right, but would instantly fail. Worse would be:

[babel.mappings] method = "genshi"pattern = "**/templates/**.html"include_attrs = "" [babel.mappings] method = "genshi"pattern = "**/templates/**.txt"template_class = "genshi.template:TextTemplate"encoding = "latin-1"

This is luckily an error in TOML, but still confusing. There should be a clear and early error message if isinstance(config['mapping'], dict) is True (or in my proposal, any(isinstance(k, dict) for k in config['mapping'].keys())).

I think with the clear error message (that I posit is needed regardless of the option taken), my proposal still has merit. However, it does have drawbacks as you note.

[akx]

@AA-Turner@tomasr8 Do you have the time to take another look at this? Thanks!

[tomasr8]

Looks good to me :) Should we add some sample toml configs to the docs as well?

[AA-Turner]

When I moved theme.conf to theme.toml in Sphinx, I added a conversion helper (python -m sphinx.theming conf_to_toml <path>) for consumers to use. Perhaps something similar could be helpful here, if so I could investigate a PR?

A

[akx]

Thank you for the wonderful comments and review! ❤️