[bazel] Add fixes for --incompatible_load_proto_rules_from_bzl#20783
[bazel] Add fixes for --incompatible_load_proto_rules_from_bzl#20783gnossen merged 1 commit intogrpc:masterfrom
Conversation
|
@gnossen can you please review? |
bazel/grpc_python_deps.bzl
Outdated
| load("@com_github_grpc_grpc//third_party/py:python_configure.bzl", "python_configure") | ||
|
|
||
| def grpc_python_deps(): | ||
| native.bind( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this constitute a breaking change for those who consume us?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see that we're forced to do this because protobuf already made this breaking change. :/
@nicolasnoble Thoughts on yet another Bazel breaking change? As far as I can tell, the options are:
- accept the breaking change and force all of our downstream users to do the same
- get protobuf to roll back the change and potentially break users who have already accommodated it
Regardless, it's pretty clear that protobuf needs something like a Bazel distribtest.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this could break some consumers if they explicitly depend on how six is defined.
I still think it's worth moving away from bind().
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nicolasnoble and I talked offline. I agree that moving away from bind is the right option. But we can't just break backwards compatibility whenever we like. We'd like to batch up several backwards incompatible changes and synchronize them with our addition of official support for Bazel 1.0. We'll be discussing this in a meeting early next week. Until then, we'll need to put this change on hold.
|
Build failure from CI: |
Yannic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your review! ptal
bazel/grpc_python_deps.bzl
Outdated
| load("@com_github_grpc_grpc//third_party/py:python_configure.bzl", "python_configure") | ||
|
|
||
| def grpc_python_deps(): | ||
| native.bind( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this could break some consumers if they explicitly depend on how six is defined.
I still think it's worth moving away from bind().
|
@gnossen Any news on this? |
|
@Yannic Sorry for the long delay. It's clear that this is the only way we're going to be able to update our protobuf dependency, so I'd like to go ahead and fast track this for merge. |
There are still some issues with the |
|
Thanks for pinging. I'll take a look tomorrow. |
|
This is partly superseded by #21590, so let's wait until that lands as this will likely show the same issues with blacklisted protos. |
aedbad6 to
06ecc87
Compare
|
@gnossen I finally found the time to update this. platl |
|
Awesome! Running CI on it. |
|
Thanks @gnossen! CI failures look unrelated. |
|
Failures:
|
|
@Yannic Thanks for the contribution! |

Starting soon, Protobuf rules will require explicit load statements
bazelbuild/bazel#8922
@yashykt