Skip to content

Conversation

@ejona86
Copy link
Member

@ejona86 ejona86 commented Mar 31, 2018

They were removed in 137c74d since it was believed they were unnecessary.
However, since they are in a macro and not a rule, they are relative to the
caller, not their definition.

Added building the examples to the kokoro CI. Note that this means the examples
are built twice: once in grpc-java's build and once in their own (because it
has a WORKSPACE). Given that the Bazel build is our fastest build, this
slowdown won't probably be an issue.

CC @cgrushko

They were removed in 137c74d since it was believed they were unnecessary.
However, since they are in a macro and not a rule, they are relative to the
caller, not their definition.

Added building the examples to the kokoro CI. Note that this means the examples
are built twice: once in grpc-java's build and once in their own (because it
has a WORKSPACE). Given that the Bazel build is our fastest build, this
slowdown won't probably be an issue.
@cgrushko
Copy link
Contributor

Mmm.. what you're saying makes sense, but I removed the repo name because it unbroke my build. But perhaps I mixed things up and it wasn't actually my problem.

@ejona86
Copy link
Member Author

ejona86 commented Apr 2, 2018

@cgrushko, there was one instance I didn't revert, because it was in the rule() instead. That did behave like you were saying, so I didn't need to put the repo prefix.

I'm working on a version that uses java_common to fix the long-standing stict_dep issues, which will make all of this move into the rule. I still have to work out a problem with android, but I think I'll use java_import for that. Hopefully this change will become moot soon.

@ejona86 ejona86 requested review from carl-mastrangelo and removed request for dapengzhang0 April 3, 2018 15:34
Copy link
Contributor

@carl-mastrangelo carl-mastrangelo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No concerns here. LGTM

@ejona86 ejona86 merged commit ef030ab into grpc:master Apr 3, 2018
@ejona86 ejona86 deleted the fix-proto-bazel branch April 3, 2018 15:42
@dapengzhang0
Copy link
Contributor

@ejona86 is this going to backport to v1.11.x?

@ejona86
Copy link
Member Author

ejona86 commented May 14, 2018

Backporting in #4463

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 18, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants