use scikit-build-core as build backend

[TonyXiang8787]

This is an attempt to use scikit-build-core to replace setuptools as build backend for Python. It uses native cmake to build the shared object.

check list

• Modify build backend
• Configure Python
• Modify CI
• Adjust project URL
• Adjust build guide
• Test conda build in conda-forge
• Test local build for all local dev environment (two persons per environment)
  • Windows MSVC (to be tested by @Jerry-Jinfeng-Guo )
  • MacOS Apple Clang (tested by @figueroa1395)
  • Linux GCC (tested by @nitbharambe )
  • Linux Clang (tested by @nitbharambe )

Conda forge test in:

conda-forge/power-grid-model-feedstock#389

local build test guide

prepare

1. Check-out this branch.
2. Remove the existing virtual environment, create a new one.
3. Remove build folder if it exists.
4. If you are in Windows, you have to conduct the remaining test in MSVC developer console.

test build

Test build to sdist and wheel using build.

pip install build
python -m build .
pip install dist/*.whl pytest pytest-cov msgpack
pytest

pip uninstall power-grid-model
pip install dist/*.tar.gz
pytest

test editable install

Test build in-place for editable install.

pip uninstall power-grid-model
pip install -e .[dev]
pytest

[TonyXiang8787]

@mgovers this is in principle ready to review. But wait until many developers test in their local build environment to merge.

[figueroa1395]

I tested in MacOS with a conda (mini-forge) env and everything works well. I also reviewed conda-forge/power-grid-model-feedstock#389 and everything seems fine.

As a side note for others testing locally, I would recommend using python -m build . --verbose to build, as it takes some time and otherwise you'd be left in blank.

Hereby I give my approval to the new workflow (waiting for others to review before marking approved on the PR itself).

[figueroa1395]

One additional thing, is it just my impression or the build time seems to be considerably longer with the new workflow?

[TonyXiang8787]

One additional thing, is it just my impression or the build time seems to be considerably longer with the new workflow?

@figueroa1395

In latest main, the MacOS Python build took 83.9s:
https://github.com/PowerGridModel/power-grid-model/actions/runs/15701285970/job/44236484805

In this PR, the MacOS Python build took 92.9s:
https://github.com/PowerGridModel/power-grid-model/actions/runs/15714477992/job/44280706230?pr=1019

So it is not considerably longer. We can also enable parallel build (in cmake/ninja) for local develop environment. This should speed up a lot.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
74.2% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR replaces setuptools with scikit-build-core as the Python build backend, centralizes DLL lookup into a new helper, and updates CI, docs, and packaging accordingly.

• Switched build backend to scikit-build-core and removed setup.py
• Added get_pgm_dll_path for consistent dynamic library loading
• Updated GitHub Actions workflows, conda env, and documentation for the new build system

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
src/power_grid_model/power_grid_model_c/get_pgm_dll_path.py	New helper to locate and prioritize PGM dynamic libraries
src/power_grid_model/_core/power_grid_core.py	Replaced manual DLL search with get_pgm_dll_path()
pyproject.toml	Updated build-system requirements/backend and scikit-build settings
.github/workflows/build-test-release.yml	Adapted version file handling and pip install flags
docs/advanced_documentation/build-guide.md	Updated dependency table to include scikit-build-core
MANIFEST.in	Removed in favor of scikit-build-core defaults
cmake/pgm_version.cmake	Enhanced regex-based version extraction
.github/conda_pgm_env.yml	Updated conda env to install scikit-build-core
.github/actions/enable-msvc/action.yml	New composite action to set up MSVC on runners

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (4)

.github/workflows/build-test-release.yml:281

• The -C flag is not a valid pip install option and will be interpreted as a constraints file. Consider using the --config-settings option to pass build backend settings (e.g., --config-settings "wheel.cmake=false").

        run: python -m pip install . --no-build-isolation --no-deps -C wheel.cmake=false

src/power_grid_model/power_grid_model_c/get_pgm_dll_path.py:10

• Consider adding unit tests for get_pgm_dll_path to verify platform-specific paths, the editable-build fallback, and ordering of lookup candidates.

def get_pgm_dll_path() -> Path:

docs/advanced_documentation/build-guide.md:95

• It would be helpful to add a section or note explaining how to invoke scikit-build-core for building the project (e.g., required CLI commands or entry-point usage).

| [scikit-build-core](https://github.com/scikit-build/scikit-build-core)                                                  | build dependency         | [Apache](https://github.com/scikit-build/scikit-build-core/blob/main/LICENSE)                                 |

[Copilot]

On Windows both lib_dir_1 and lib_dir_2 are set to the same path. You could simplify this by iterating over a single list of candidate directories instead of duplicating assignments.

Suggested change

	lib_dir_1 = package_dir / "bin"
	lib_dir_2 = package_dir / "bin"
	else:
	lib_dir_1 = package_dir / "lib"
	lib_dir_2 = package_dir / "lib64"
	lib_dirs = [package_dir / "bin"]
	else:
	lib_dirs = [package_dir / "lib", package_dir / "lib64"]