Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Artifact debug repr should include the owner #6272

Open
benjaminp opened this issue Sep 28, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Artifact debug repr should include the owner #6272

benjaminp opened this issue Sep 28, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels
P3 We're not considering working on this, but happy to review a PR. (No assignee) team-Rules-API API for writing rules/aspects: providers, runfiles, actions, artifacts type: feature request

Comments

@benjaminp
Copy link
Collaborator

As of bf4123d, Artifact equality takes the artifact owner into account. Since the Starlark repr of Artifact only prints the execpath, it's possible to have two artifacts, a and b, that have the same execpath (and thus repr) but satisfy a != b. Unsurprisingly, this generates confusion–even for seasoned Blaze developers. Therefore, I propose including the owner in the output of printing an artifact.
@jin jin added untriaged team-Bazel General Bazel product/strategy issues labels Oct 1, 2018
@aiuto aiuto added team-Execution team-Configurability Issues for Configurability team and removed team-Bazel General Bazel product/strategy issues team-Execution labels Oct 2, 2018
@aiuto
Copy link
Contributor

aiuto commented Oct 2, 2018

Assigning to configurability for now, this might be Execution.

@jin
Copy link
Member

jin commented Oct 3, 2018

Reassigning to Starlark, since this is about repr().

@jin jin added team-Starlark and removed team-Configurability Issues for Configurability team labels Oct 3, 2018
@laurentlb laurentlb added type: feature request P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) and removed untriaged labels Oct 16, 2018
@benjaminp benjaminp mentioned this issue Mar 7, 2019
Closed
@brandjon
Copy link
Member

brandjon commented Mar 7, 2019 •
edited

+1, appears to have hit me in #7655.

Edit: meant to reply on #7658, not this bug, but this is problematic for similar reasons.

@brandjon brandjon added P4 This is either out of scope or we don't have bandwidth to review a PR. (No assignee) and removed P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) labels Feb 17, 2021
@brandjon brandjon added untriaged team-Rules-API API for writing rules/aspects: providers, runfiles, actions, artifacts and removed team-Build-Language labels Nov 4, 2022
@comius comius added P3 We're not considering working on this, but happy to review a PR. (No assignee) and removed P4 This is either out of scope or we don't have bandwidth to review a PR. (No assignee) untriaged labels Aug 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
P3 We're not considering working on this, but happy to review a PR. (No assignee) team-Rules-API API for writing rules/aspects: providers, runfiles, actions, artifacts type: feature request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
7 participants
@benjaminp @jin @laurentlb @brandjon @comius @aiuto @c-parsons