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

Migrate rules_scala for https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/7153 #775

Closed

Conversation

hlopko
Copy link
Member

@hlopko hlopko commented Jun 20, 2019

This PR simply follows the migration instructions in
bazelbuild/bazel#7153, that is renames
proto_source_root to strip_import_prefix and prepends the attribute
value with /

This PR simply follows the migration instructions in
bazelbuild/bazel#7153, that is renames
`proto_source_root` to `strip_import_prefix` and prepends the attribute
value with `/`
@hlopko hlopko requested a review from johnynek as a code owner June 20, 2019 13:11
@hlopko
Copy link
Member Author

hlopko commented Jun 21, 2019

It seems the travis is failing, but Bazel CI not, and I cannot make it fail for me locally (even with 0.23.1), do you have any advice how to reproduce please?

Thank you!

@johnynek
Copy link
Member

There are negative tests that the bazel CI does not test. These are tests where we expect a failure to compile or failure of a test:

https://travis-ci.org/bazelbuild/rules_scala/jobs/548557592#L506

Can you run the target it is complaining about with the options shown there?

@johnynek
Copy link
Member

PS: if you have any suggestions for clean ways to do negative tests in bazel, that would be great. We want to test that building some targets errors, or running some tests fail. It hasn't been clear to us if it is safe to run bazel recursively: e.g. a bazel rule that runs bazel and expects failure on a test. It seems most rule authors should need this functionality because we absolutely need negative tests in rules.

@hlopko
Copy link
Member Author

hlopko commented Jul 15, 2019

cc @iirina

Sorry for the radio silence, I hope to come back to this soon.

@johnynek
Copy link
Member

Am I right that #793 supersedes this?

@johnynek
Copy link
Member

Please reopen if this is still needed.

@johnynek johnynek closed this Aug 18, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants