Fix some bug#1291

[Ashok-0167]

This issue highlights a dependency management problem with the pyperclip module during installation.
The proposed fix ensures that all dependencies install automatically and the setup process completes without errors, improving user experience and reliability.

---

Important

Fixes pyperclip installation issue by adding troubleshooting steps in README.md and new installation scripts for Windows and Unix-like systems.

• Behavior:
  • Adds troubleshooting section to README.md for pyperclip installation error with setuptools.
  • Provides quick fix instructions for the error in README.md.
• Scripts:
  • Adds install_fixed.ps1 for Windows to handle pyperclip installation issue.
  • Adds install_fixed.sh for Unix-like systems to handle pyperclip installation issue.

^{This description was created by for 7061cbc. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 7061cbc in 1 minute and 43 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 83 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 2 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:146

• Draft comment:
  Ensure version specifiers are consistent: the troubleshooting section uses pyperclip==1.8.2 and setuptools<66.0, whereas the install scripts use pyperclip>=1.8.2,<1.9.0 and setuptools>=45.0,<66.0. Consider aligning these for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the diff, I only see the troubleshooting section's version specifiers. I cannot verify what the install scripts actually specify since they're not in the diff. Without seeing the other version specifiers, I cannot be certain this inconsistency exists. Additionally, the troubleshooting section is specifically for fixing an error, so it may intentionally use stricter version requirements. I might be missing important context about the install scripts' version specifications. The comment could be correct about the inconsistency. However, without seeing the install scripts in the diff, I cannot verify the comment's claim. The troubleshooting section may intentionally use stricter versions to fix a specific issue. Delete the comment because we cannot verify its accuracy from the diff alone, and the troubleshooting section may intentionally use different version specifiers to fix a specific issue.

2. scripts/install_fixed.ps1:17

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the script is run from the repository root, as using -e . requires it. Consider adding error handling for failed commands.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 50% <= threshold 50% The comment suggests adding error handling for failed commands, which is a specific code suggestion. However, the first part of the comment is purely informative, reminding the author to run the script from the repository root. This part does not align with the rules as it is not a specific code suggestion or request for clarification. The second part about error handling is useful.

3. scripts/install_fixed.ps1:20

• Draft comment:
  Add a newline at the end of the file for better compatibility and diff readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct and follows good practices, it's an extremely minor formatting issue. Most modern editors handle this automatically. The comment doesn't point out any significant problems with the code logic or implementation. It's more of a style preference than a necessary change. The comment is technically accurate and follows Unix file conventions. Not having a trailing newline could cause issues with some tools. While true, this is such a minor issue that it doesn't warrant a PR comment. Modern development environments typically handle this automatically, and it doesn't affect the script's functionality. Delete this comment as it's too minor of an issue to warrant a PR comment. It falls under the category of "obvious or unimportant" per our review rules.

4. scripts/install_fixed.sh:19

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the script is executed from the repository root, as installing with '-e .' assumes the current directory is the project root.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and instructs the PR author to ensure something, which violates the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

5. README.md:140

• Draft comment:
  It appears the inline code for the error message is missing a closing backtick. Consider updating the text to: ### Installation Error: `canonicalize_version() got an unexpected keyword argument 'strip_trailing_zero'` to ensure proper markdown formatting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

6. scripts/install_fixed.ps1:20

• Draft comment:
  There might be a typo in the command on line 20. Should it be "gpt-engineer projects/example" instead of "gpte projects/example"?
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% Without seeing the actual command-line interface of the tool, I cannot be certain whether 'gpte' is an incorrect alias or an intentional shorthand command. The script installs 'gpt-engineer' but that doesn't necessarily mean the command must match the package name exactly. Many tools provide shorter aliases for convenience. I don't have access to the tool's documentation or command-line interface definition to verify the correct command name. The shorter version could be an intentional design choice. Since I can't be certain that 'gpte' is incorrect, and given that shorter command aliases are common practice, I should err on the side of assuming this was intentional. Delete the comment since we don't have strong evidence that 'gpte' is incorrect, and it could be an intentional alias.

7. scripts/install_fixed.sh:22

• Draft comment:
  Typo detected: The command text says "gpte projects/example". Please confirm if this should be "gpt-engineer projects/example" or another intended command, to ensure consistency with the rest of the script.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While there is a difference between the package name and command, I don't have enough context to know if 'gpte' is actually an incorrect alias. Many CLI tools have shorter aliases (like kubectl/k8s). Without seeing the actual package configuration, I can't be certain this is wrong. The comment is also asking for confirmation rather than stating a definitive issue. The command 'gpte' could be an intentional shorter alias for the tool. I don't have access to the package's setup.py or entry points configuration to verify this. Since I can't be certain this is an error and the comment is asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a definitive issue, it violates our rules about speculative comments and asking for verification. Delete this comment because it's speculative and asks for confirmation without strong evidence that 'gpte' is incorrect.

Workflow ID: wflow_6jHuHsUo2Vj8jE5T

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider using 'python -m pip' (e.g. python -m pip install --upgrade pip) instead of plain 'pip' to ensure the correct Python interpreter is used.

Suggested change

	pip install --upgrade pip
	python -m pip install --upgrade pip

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider adding 'set -e' right after the shebang to exit on errors, which improves the script's reliability.

[Ashok-0167]

It's better than before without the bug.