L86: aspect-based python bazel rules #263
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gnossen
approved these changes
Sep 8, 2021
Contributor
gnossen
left a comment
gnossen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for putting the time into writing this up. I think it's unlikely that anyone will complain, but better safe than sorry.
mbeards
force-pushed
the
python_aspect
branch
from
f73e067 to
f0e0b08
Compare
mbeards
changed the title
lidizheng
reviewed
Sep 13, 2021
| * The aspect produces a custom [providers](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/main/skylark/rules.html#providers) `PyProtoInfo` that wraps a `PyInfo` provider to avoid creating spurious dependencies for Python users that interface with the `proto_library` rules through some other means. | ||
| * The `py_proto_library` and `py_grpc_library` rules will only be responsible for collecting the `PyInfo` providers from their dependencies. | ||
| * The `plugin` attribute must be removed from `py_proto_library`. Aspects require the declaration of all possible parameter values up front, so it would not be possible for the new aspects to continue supporting arbitrary plugins. (Note that the plugin feature is not used in gRPC. It was introduced to support [GAPIC](https://github.com/googleapis/gapic-generator-python), which no longer uses the feature.) | ||
| * No behavior change should be observed by the user of `py_proto_library` or `py_grpc_library` unless they rely on the (removed) `plugin` attribute. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might want to note this in v1.41.x release note.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Anything additional to mention in the gRFC? Or should this be addressed in the implementation PR?
Contributor
Author
|
I'm going to pause on this for a bit - there are enough open questions in-flight around import paths that I suspect a multi-step approach is going to be needed if we want to land a change like this. |
We only need an aspect for py_proto_library, since the py_grpc_library only needs codegen for the leaf proto.
mbeards
force-pushed
the
python_aspect
branch
from
e28fc15 to
b001219
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
I made a few minor revs here - I think we're ready to go now that the implementation is in good shape. |
gnossen
reviewed
Oct 19, 2021
mbeards
force-pushed
the
python_aspect
branch
from
b001219 to
a95d396
Compare
gnossen
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2021
gnossen
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.