Skip to content

Conversation

@Yannic
Copy link
Collaborator

@Yannic Yannic commented Oct 30, 2025

Sadly, I had to reimplement package_group in starlark for this to allow referencing other repositories (native package_group prohibits creating patterns starting with @).

Sadly, I had to reimplement `package_group` in starlark for this to allow referencing other repositories `native `package_group` prohibits creating patterns starting with `@`).
@Yannic Yannic marked this pull request as draft October 30, 2025 17:26
@Yannic Yannic marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2025 13:34
PackageMetadataInfo,
],
),
"packages": attr.label(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we need this on target also.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We already support //foo/... //foo (all targets in the package) and //foo:bar (for the exact target) (+ their @somethingsomething equivalents)

Renaming to targets SGTM

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. Let's rename this early to make it clear.

@aiuto
Copy link
Collaborator

aiuto commented Nov 7, 2025

I'm not convinced of this yet. I would really like to review it within a large example of how it plays out.
I think it's premature to put in the feature without a PRD to list out the requirements we are trying to meet, and then validating the design against those requirements.

Copy link
Collaborator

@aiuto aiuto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's not do this right before bazelcon. We should really check this in the context of examples.

@TheGrizzlyDev
Copy link
Collaborator

Let's not do this right before bazelcon. We should really check this in the context of examples.

why? It's completely separate and doesn't interfere with any existing API and it's the first change that comes with actual tests :) I don't see how this could be a problem

A dict from a dummy label to the parsed configuration.

Key: a label in the repository of the target pattern. Only `Label.repo_name` is
used. Does not need to extist.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: typo

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants