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

chore: Ignore shellcheck error in copy-paste code #22530

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

honnix
Copy link
Contributor

@honnix honnix commented May 24, 2024

This piece of code is supposed to be copy-pasted literally, so it is better to already configure shellcheck ignore to help users who apply shellcheck to their scripts.

This piece of code is supposed to be copy-pasted literally, so it is better to already configure shellcheck ignore to help users who apply shellcheck to their scripts.
@github-actions github-actions bot added the awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer label May 24, 2024
@@ -70,6 +70,7 @@
# # --- begin runfiles.bash initialization v3 ---
# # Copy-pasted from the Bazel Bash runfiles library v3.
# set -uo pipefail; set +e; f=bazel_tools/tools/bash/runfiles/runfiles.bash
# # shellcheck disable=SC1090
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The docs suggest a different workaround, should we use that instead?
https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC1090

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tried that but couldn't figure it out how to get it work because the file is part of runfile so depending on how shellcheck is executed, it may not be able to locate it. Having # shellcheck source=/dev/null is pretty much the same as ignoring.

Copy link
Collaborator

@fmeum fmeum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@meteorcloudy Could you import this?

@meteorcloudy meteorcloudy added awaiting-PR-merge PR has been approved by a reviewer and is ready to be merge internally and removed awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels May 24, 2024
@sgowroji sgowroji added the team-OSS Issues for the Bazel OSS team: installation, release processBazel packaging, website label May 27, 2024
@copybara-service copybara-service bot closed this in b75ad88 Jun 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the awaiting-PR-merge PR has been approved by a reviewer and is ready to be merge internally label Jun 7, 2024
@honnix honnix deleted the patch-2 branch June 7, 2024 09:12
@fmeum
Copy link
Collaborator

fmeum commented Jun 7, 2024

@bazel-io fork 7.3.0

bazel-io pushed a commit to bazel-io/bazel that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2024
This piece of code is supposed to be copy-pasted literally, so it is better to already configure shellcheck ignore to help users who apply shellcheck to their scripts.

Closes bazelbuild#22530.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 641178789
Change-Id: I4ea3629f57e66996fca5768cea73497cda29eb16
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2024
This piece of code is supposed to be copy-pasted literally, so it is
better to already configure shellcheck ignore to help users who apply
shellcheck to their scripts.

Closes #22530.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 641178789
Change-Id: I4ea3629f57e66996fca5768cea73497cda29eb16

Commit
b75ad88

Co-authored-by: Honnix <honnix@users.noreply.github.com>
@iancha1992
Copy link
Member

The changes in this PR have been included in Bazel 7.3.0 RC1. Please test out the release candidate and report any issues as soon as possible.
If you're using Bazelisk, you can point to the latest RC by setting USE_BAZEL_VERSION=7.3.0rc1. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
team-OSS Issues for the Bazel OSS team: installation, release processBazel packaging, website
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants