Hi @jcfangc ,
Thank you for your contribution! Please follow the contribution guideline. You forget to run poetry format on the latest iteration.

Hi @jcfangc , Thank you for your contribution! Please follow the contribution guideline. You forget to run poetry format on the latest iteration.

Sorry about that—I’ll run poetry format and push an update asap.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.98%. Comparing base (aa82b98) to head (0eead00).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1733 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 97.95% 97.98% +0.02% 
==========================================
 Files 60 60 
 Lines 2646 2674 +28 
==========================================
+ Hits 2592 2620 +28 
 Misses 54 54 

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

When I first pulled the branch locally, I didn’t have uv.lock in the working tree, and poetry format isn’t a Poetry subcommand in my setup (Poetry 1.1.12 reports: "The command 'format' is not defined").

Following the repo’s uv/poe workflow, I synced dependencies (needed uv sync --all-groups to make ruff available), then ran uv run poe format, and pushed the formatting update.

Just to clarify / FYI.

I think it would be easier and cleaner to just rebase/squash on the current master.
You are not changing dependencies, so your PR should not touch the uv.lock file.
To avoid this side effect, run uv sync --frozen --all-groups instead of just uv sync --all-groups (uv default behavior is to check and update the lock).
Also, you might want to update your uv version, it is trying to downgrade the lock version so it might be outdated.

I think it would be easier and cleaner to just rebase/squash on the current master. You are not changing dependencies, so your PR should not touch the uv.lock file. To avoid this side effect, run uv sync --frozen --all-groups instead of just uv sync --all-groups (uv default behavior is to check and update the lock). Also, you might want to update your uv version, it is trying to downgrade the lock version so it might be outdated.

Thanks for the feedback.

I’ve rebased/squashed the branch on top of the current master and ensured the PR no longer touches lockfiles:

• reverted/restored uv.lock and poetry.lock to match master (no lockfile changes in the PR diff now)

Going forward I’ll use uv sync --frozen --all-groups to avoid accidental lock updates, and I’ll also update my local uv to prevent lock format/version downgrades.

All checks are now green.

The rebase did not succeed, only your commits should appear on "Commits".

On top of that, I wonder if #1715 (in-progress) addresses this issue, can you take a look? It also changes the read order, if there are no complaints about that I was planning on merging it

The rebase did not succeed, only your commits should appear on "Commits".

On top of that, I wonder if #1715 (in-progress) addresses this issue, can you take a look? It also changes the read order, if there are no complaints about that I was planning on merging it

Hi @woile, thanks for flagging #1715 — they are related but not the same.

• fix: workspace member with fixed version #1715 focuses on two smaller cargo-provider behaviors:

  1. ensuring we use the same precedence/order when reading vs writing the version between [package] and workspace metadata, and
  2. clarifying/fixing the "fixed version for a workspace member" case: there is no workspace.version = "x.y.z" in Cargo spec; a member crate must use version = "x.y.z" even if it’s part of a workspace.

• fix(cargo_provider): support workspace virtual manifests #1733 targets a broader and different failure mode: workspace virtual manifests (root Cargo.toml with [workspace] / [workspace.package] but no [package]). It:

  1. prevents crashes when [package] is missing / when version.workspace shape appears,
  2. reads/writes version from [workspace.package].version when present (fallback to [package].version for non-workspace manifests), and
  3. updates Cargo.lock appropriately for virtual manifests by scanning workspace.members and updating lock entries for crates with package.version.workspace = true.

So #1715 does not address the virtual-manifest crash nor the lockfile update logic; #1733 does. The overlap is mostly around "precedence when both [package] and [workspace.package] exist", which is a policy choice.

If you’d like to merge #1715 first, I can rebase #1733 on top of it and drop any overlapping hunks/tests. Alternatively, I can incorporate the #1715 precedence decision into #1733 so we end up with a single coherent behavior.

The rebase did not succeed, only your commits should appear on "Commits".

On top of that, I wonder if #1715 (in-progress) addresses this issue, can you take a look? It also changes the read order, if there are no complaints about that I was planning on merging it

I rebuilt the branch on top of current upstream/master by cherry-picking only my 4 commits (no merge commits).
The PR no longer touches any lockfiles (uv.lock / poetry.lock).

Could you please take another look? @woile

Hi @bearomorphism @woile @noirbizarre @Lee-W — I’ve addressed the requested changes and force-pushed updates.

• Fixed the review comments in cargo_provider.py, hardened parsing/lock updates, removed an unused type: ignore, and ran the formatter.
• No uv.lock / poetry.lock changes; all checks are green.

Could you please re-review when you have a moment? Thanks.