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.

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

incompatible_disallow_legacy_java_provider: Remove the old style, string-indexed Starlark ‘java’ provider #7598

Closed
iirina opened this issue Mar 1, 2019 · 13 comments

Comments

@iirina
Copy link
Contributor

@iirina iirina commented Mar 1, 2019

Flag: --incompatible_disallow_legacy_java_provider
Available since: 0.23 (February 2019 release)
Will be flipped in: 0.25 (April 2019 release)

The old style '.java' provider is removed in favor of JavaInfo.

Migration Notes

All Starlark usages of .java must be replaced by [JavaInfo].

@dslomov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@dslomov dslomov commented Mar 1, 2019

@lberki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@lberki lberki commented Mar 18, 2019

/cc @lberki

@lberki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@lberki lberki commented Mar 18, 2019

Can we put back the breaking-change-0.25 label now that the flag is released?

@iirina

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@iirina iirina commented Mar 18, 2019

0.25 is not a realistic estimation anymore. 0.26 is safest.

@lberki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@lberki lberki commented Mar 18, 2019

Even thoug there are about six weeks until the April release is released?

@iirina

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@iirina iirina commented Mar 18, 2019

There are only 2 weeks until the first RC is cut. Do we have a policy for cherry picking flipping incompatible flags?

@lberki

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@lberki lberki commented Mar 18, 2019

Well, let's see who breaks... unfortunately, the migration-* label was missing, so CI run for this flag :(

@dkelmer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@dkelmer dkelmer commented Apr 3, 2019

What is the status with this flag? 0.25 is being cut now. Do you want to leave breaking-change-0.26?

@dkelmer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@dkelmer dkelmer commented Apr 3, 2019

The instructions here say to remove the migration-ready label so I'm doing that

@dslomov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@dslomov dslomov commented Jun 7, 2019

what is the status of this in 0.26?

@hlopko

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@hlopko hlopko commented Jun 7, 2019

Still not flipped. I updated labels now.

beasleyr-vmw added a commit to beasleyr-vmw/bazel-common that referenced this issue Jun 20, 2019
Preparation for bazelbuild/bazel#7598.

Resolves google#75.

Testing Done:
- Used `javadoc_library` in a project with custom Java rules which only export
  the `JavaInfo` provider.
ronshapiro added a commit to google/bazel-common that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2019
Preparation for bazelbuild/bazel#7598.

Closes #75.
Resolves #76.

Testing Done:
- `./build_test.sh`
- Used `javadoc_library` in a project with custom Java rules which only export
  the `JavaInfo` provider.

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=254235598
@ronshapiro ronshapiro referenced this issue Jun 27, 2019
ronshapiro added a commit to google/bazel-common that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2019
Preparation for bazelbuild/bazel#7598.

Closes #75.
Resolves #76.

Testing Done:
- `./build_test.sh`
- Used `javadoc_library` in a project with custom Java rules which only export
  the `JavaInfo` provider.

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=254235598
@katre katre added migration-0.29 and removed migration-0.29 labels Aug 2, 2019
@dslomov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@dslomov dslomov commented Aug 5, 2019

Is there migration tooling available? What is the extent of the breakage?

@iirina

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@iirina iirina commented Aug 9, 2019

bazel-io pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 23, 2019
Progress on #7598.

Closes #9230.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 265016605
cpovirk added a commit to google/flogger that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2019
Preparation for bazelbuild/bazel#7598.

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=265421674
@cpovirk cpovirk referenced this issue Aug 26, 2019
cpovirk added a commit to google/flogger that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2019
Preparation for bazelbuild/bazel#7598.

-------------
Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe
MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=265421674
bazel-io pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 28, 2019
Progress on #7598.

RELNOTES: None.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 265874920
@bazel-io bazel-io closed this in c8a32f2 Aug 29, 2019
bazel-io pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 29, 2019
--incompatible_disallow_legacy_java_provider (see #7598) is now a no-op and moved to the graveyard.

RELNOTES: None.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 266112979
bazel-io pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 3, 2019
--incompatible_disallow_legacy_java_provider (see #7598) is now a no-op and moved to the graveyard.

Fixes #9309.

RELNOTES: None.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 266919362
nicoaragon added a commit to nicoaragon/bazel that referenced this issue Sep 4, 2019
--incompatible_disallow_legacy_java_provider (see bazelbuild#7598) is now a no-op and moved to the graveyard.

Fixes bazelbuild#9309.

RELNOTES: None.
PiperOrigin-RevId: 266919362
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.