Use uv lockfile in readthedocs build

[danielhollas]

Now that we have a bit of good experience with uv lockfile, it would be nice to use it in more places to make various CI jobs more stable. Here I am using it for the RTD docs build. We've already been using uv there so that change is relatively straightforward.

Coincidentaly, ReadTheDocs made some updates to make the configuration with uv nicer, just a couple of days ago see readthedocs/readthedocs.org#11289 (comment) for details.

This also updates the uv version in RTD config.

[danielhollas]

Huh, 20 tests failed on my, such as

FAILED tests/orm/nodes/data/test_remote.py::test_get_size_on_disk_params[setup0-results0-local] - AssertionError: assert ('12.00 B', 'du') == ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  At index 0 diff: '12.00 B' != '4.01 KB'
  Full diff:
  - ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  ?   ^  ^^^
  + ('12.00 B', 'du')
  ?   ^^  ^^
FAILED tests/orm/nodes/data/test_remote.py::test_get_size_on_disk_params[setup0-results0-ssh] - AssertionError: assert ('12.00 B', 'du') == ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  At index 0 diff: '12.00 B' != '4.01 KB'
  Full diff:
  - ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  ?   ^  ^^^
  + ('12.00 B', 'du')
  ?   ^^  ^^

https://github.com/danielhollas/aiida-core/actions/runs/12694592672/job/35384697895

Is this a know failure? Weirdly, the tests pass on this PR.

[danielhollas]

The failing test is due to the timeout issue.

[unkcpz]

Huh, 20 tests failed on my, such as

FAILED tests/orm/nodes/data/test_remote.py::test_get_size_on_disk_params[setup0-results0-local] - AssertionError: assert ('12.00 B', 'du') == ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  At index 0 diff: '12.00 B' != '4.01 KB'
  Full diff:
  - ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  ?   ^  ^^^
  + ('12.00 B', 'du')
  ?   ^^  ^^
FAILED tests/orm/nodes/data/test_remote.py::test_get_size_on_disk_params[setup0-results0-ssh] - AssertionError: assert ('12.00 B', 'du') == ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  At index 0 diff: '12.00 B' != '4.01 KB'
  Full diff:
  - ('4.01 KB', 'du')
  ?   ^  ^^^
  + ('12.00 B', 'du')
  ?   ^^  ^^

https://github.com/danielhollas/aiida-core/actions/runs/12694592672/job/35384697895

Is this a know failure? Weirdly, the tests pass on this PR.

It seems not relate to timeout, and it only failed on your forked CI?

BTW, the changes looks good, thanks for the work.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.99%. Comparing base (3f5e2c1) to head (39c4ad3).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6685   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.99%   77.99%           
=======================================
  Files         563      563           
  Lines       41761    41761           
=======================================
  Hits        32567    32567           
  Misses       9194     9194           

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

[danielhollas]

and it only failed on your forked CI?

Looks like this was because the jobs on my fork used the new ubuntu-24.04 runners, which somehow make the tests fail. I've reproduced it in #6696. I'll open an separate issue. In any case, not related to this PR.

[unkcpz]

Thanks for further checking on thttps://github.com//pull/6696, this one looks good to me.