Skip to content

Conversation

@novas0x2a
Copy link
Collaborator

https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-skylib/blob/main/docs/modules_doc.md#modulesuse_all_repos will cause bazel mod tidy to keep the use_repo list up to date with the repos declared by the extension.

Note: the bazel_features check for has_reproducible is no longer required, because this check is already embedded inside the skylib function.

@novas0x2a novas0x2a changed the title use skylib's use_all_repos to reduce toil feat: use skylib's use_all_repos to reduce toil Jun 20, 2025
https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-skylib/blob/main/docs/modules_doc.md#modulesuse_all_repos
will cause `bazel mod tidy` to keep the use_repo list up to date with
the repos declared by the extension.

Note: the bazel_features check for `has_reproducible` is no longer
required, because this check is already embedded inside the skylib
function.
# Note: bazel mod tidy will keep this up to date
use_repo(
tools,
"cmake-3.31.8-linux-aarch64",
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@novas0x2a novas0x2a Jun 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note that this version does not match the version given in tools.cmake because the extension currently only honors tools versions set in non-root repos (and the example repo is a root repo for the purposes of this MODULE.bazel file). This does not appear to be a bug in this PR.

See my comment over here, I suspect the fix is to just remove mod.is_root line?

Comment on lines +31 to +35
"cmake-3.31.8-linux-aarch64",
"cmake-3.31.8-linux-x86_64",
"cmake-3.31.8-macos-universal",
"cmake-3.31.8-windows-i386",
"cmake-3.31.8-windows-x86_64",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we actually want to be pulling these repositories names into the parent scope? In fact the extension should be reducing the number of repositories it is making visible to the user as the structure of these is an implementation detail.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think not having these in the list is maybe what is generating that warning I mentioned in the other issue (though I'm not confident in that assertion...)

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