Skip to content

Fix stamping for rules that don't have a stamp attribute#3829

Merged
krasimirgg merged 9 commits intobazelbuild:mainfrom
justinhorvitz:main
Jan 29, 2026
Merged

Fix stamping for rules that don't have a stamp attribute#3829
krasimirgg merged 9 commits intobazelbuild:mainfrom
justinhorvitz:main

Conversation

@justinhorvitz
Copy link
Contributor

Rules that don't have a stamp attribute, for example rust_cc_proto_library_aspect, should not be treated as stamped. This was broken by #3816 - prior to that, we were returning false because they also don't have a _stamp_flag attribute.

By returning true for rust_cc_proto_library_aspect, we're unnecessarily including the volatile stamp files as action inputs, which harms build caching.

@krasimirgg krasimirgg added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 29, 2026
Merged via the queue into bazelbuild:main with commit f198dde Jan 29, 2026
3 checks passed
jason-rl pushed a commit to runloopai/rules_rust that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2026
…3829)

Rules that don't have a `stamp` attribute, for example
`rust_cc_proto_library_aspect`, should not be treated as stamped. This
was broken by bazelbuild#3816 - prior
to that, we were returning false because they also don't have a
`_stamp_flag ` attribute.

By returning true for `rust_cc_proto_library_aspect`, we're
unnecessarily including the volatile stamp files as action inputs, which
harms build caching.

---------

Co-authored-by: Krasimir Georgiev <krasimir@google.com>
dzbarsky added a commit to dzbarsky/rules_rust that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2026
dzbarsky added a commit to dzbarsky/rules_rust that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2026
dzbarsky added a commit to dzbarsky/rules_rust that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2026
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.

2 participants

Comments