Add targets that reproduce proto issues in 0.22.0 (and maybe earlier) #685
Conversation
|
interesting this passes on 0.17... huh... I have brought up many times that I think the proto rules need to improved #548 although I don't know if that will help here.... It seems like something at the bazel java skylark API may have changed. |
|
@simouns can you take a look? Cc @natansil @anchlovi who might have more
context
(I’ll also try to take a look in the next few days)
…On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 4:08 P. Oscar Boykin ***@***.***> wrote:
interesting this passes on 0.17... huh...
I have brought up many times that I think the proto rules need to improved
#548 <#548> although I
don't know if that will help here....
It seems like something at the bazel java skylark API may have changed.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#685 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABUIF5pPzvWO3NupUiD4lHWPG59cvv9Aks5vLi2UgaJpZM4ayDuj>
.
|
|
Thanks for the quick responses! I just wanted to call attention to the companion issue I created, which I believe explains the bazel API change that broke this: #687 The question in my mind is does this needs to be addressed in Bazel or in rules_scala? I don't have much context on the proto rules, but I'll keep digging on Monday. |
This also adds tests for proto_library targets that use the proto_source_root attribute.
|
I pushed up a fix which mirrors the fix @lberki made here for the java rules: bazelbuild/bazel@af36058 This simply strips out the problematic proto_paths entry. This builds successfully in an internal repo, but none of our repos (afaik) exercise the proto rules very hard. I've also added a test to targets that use the |
This reproduces an issue in bazel 0.22.0 that breaks
scalapb_proto_library. Issue to follow.It's expected that the build will fail.