Draft code and test for http module extension #16000
Conversation
…bazel into http_module_extension # Conflicts: # src/test/py/bazel/bzlmod/bazel_module_test.py
| for mod in module_ctx.modules: | ||
| for file in mod.tags.file: | ||
| # Will use the first file that appears in the tree | ||
| if file.name in files: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would be worried about some transitive dependency deep down the tree breaking the main module due to a name collision. Maybe non-root modules could be required to prefix the name with their module name? That would make collisions mich less likely while still allowing the root module to use essentially any name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a very good point, and one that I think basically kills the proposal.
The requirement to prepend the module name can work, but is rather unwieldy IMO. We could also automatically prepend the module name, but that would be a bit surprising.
My preference now is to use home-made extensions every time, which completely eradicates the name collision problem, and is actually not very verbose IMO. Compare the following two snippets:
# MODULE.bazel
module(name="foo")
http = use_extension("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http")
http.archive(name="foo_archive", ...)
http.file(name="foo_file", ...)
use_repo(http, archive="foo_archive", file="foo_file")# MODULE.bazel
my_deps = use_extension("//:my_deps.bzl", "my_deps_ext")
use_repo(my_deps, "archive", "file")
# my_deps.bzl
load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive", "http_file")
def my_deps(): # a WORKSPACE macro
http_archive(name = "archive", ...)
http_file(name = "file", ...)
my_deps_ext = module_extension(implementation=lambda ctx: my_deps())The former one does not actually bring much more convenience in my opinion, especially as the my_deps macro in the latter scenario often already exists.
SalmaSamy
changed the title
|
This one is no longer needed |
No description provided.