🧱 Simplify Usage of score_python_basics

🎯 Goal

Reduce the boilerplate needed to use score_python_basics by providing a single-line setup for consumers.

✅ Current Situation

• Setting up Python with score_python_basics currently requires ~20 lines of boilerplate.
• Users must manually configure rules_python, define toolchains, and parse requirements.txt.
• This complexity creates friction, leads to inconsistencies, and clutters MODULE.bazel files.

Example of current usage:

# -- Python boilerplate --
PYTHON_VERSION = "3.12"
bazel_dep(name = "rules_python", version = "1.0.0")
python = use_extension("@rules_python//python/extensions:python.bzl", "python")
python.toolchain(is_default = True, python_version = PYTHON_VERSION)
use_repo(python)

pip = use_extension("@rules_python//python/extensions:pip.bzl", "pip")
pip.parse(
    hub_name = "pip",
    python_version = PYTHON_VERSION,
    requirements_lock = "//tools:requirements.txt",
)
use_repo(pip, "pip")
# -- End of Python boilerplate --

bazel_dep(name = "score_python_basics", version = "0.3.0")

🚀 Solution

Make score_python_basics self-contained and declarative. It should:

• Automatically bring in rules_python with default configuration.
• Provide a default pip.parse() setup.
• Require minimal or no user-provided boilerplate.

Target usage: one bazel_dep and a single use_extension() call.

🛠️ Concrete Tasks

• Provide a setup extension in score_python_basics (e.g. setup.bzl) that wraps rules_python and pip.
• Add default toolchain registration and pip.parse() under the hood.
• Document the new one-liner setup.
• Migrate a few central repos (score, process_description, bazel_registry etc)

🔄 Considered Alternatives

Alternative: Keep the current boilerplate and document it more clearly.

Pros:

• No implementation effort.
• Explicit control remains with the user.

Cons:

• Still tedious and error-prone.
• Discourages adoption.
• Leads to inconsistent setup across teams.