-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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.
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
executable
shadows files
in DefaultInfo
#6784
Comments
executable
shadows files in DefaultInfo
executable
shadows files
in DefaultInfo
As a workaround, can you write your own test rule to customfit an appropriate test action? (That is, not use sh_test in macros for the tests but create the appropriate test action in starlark rule logic) |
I don’t know, it’s nearly been a year. We worked around it somehow back in the day. I would consider it less of a feature request and more of a bug. |
Apologies that this fell through. It's quite possible users have come to depend on this "quirk" of the API: |
Hi there! We're doing a clean up of old issues and will be closing this one. Please reopen if you’d like to discuss anything further. We’ll respond as soon as we have the bandwidth/resources to do so. |
Please take a look at the minimal repro: https://github.com/Profpatsch/repros/tree/02844d53cb21eee043795bfa735698d99da0aca4/bazel-DefaultInfo-defaults-to-executable
executable
shadowsfiles
in DefaultInfoThis repro documents the fact that it’s impossible to create a test target for another test with a macro, because the required (and afaik outdated)
executable
field inDefaultInfo
shadowsfiles
.This issue is amplified by #6783, because in order to generate
sh_test
targets for a test rule, we need to wrap insh_library
, which is itself not a test rule. This is disallowed by a bazel restriction, which forbids non-test rules to depend on test rules.A meta question would be whether this restriction is sensible for the general case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: