I am writing a custom rule that takes inputs from cc_library, cc_binary, apple_static_library, and a few other platform-specific rules. I'd like to view each API given to me via referencing ctx.attr.foo inside the custom rule's implementation function.
There is a list of providers here https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/skylark/lib/skylark-provider.html but it doesn't say which rules are using them.
Is there a best practice for viewing what these rules are providing me, or does it require going through the source for each one?
This is how you get all providers and output groups from a target:
bazel cquery my_target --output=starlark --starlark:expr="providers(target)"
You can get a list of providers for a given target with dir. Something like this is helpful for debugging:
def _print_attrs_impl(ctx):
for target in ctx.attr.targets:
print('%s: %s' % (target.label, dir(target)))
Printing from inside a rule you're developing is often helpful too, to verify targets are actually what you expect them to be.
You can also apply dir to the providers themselves, to see what fields they have.
Related
I have rule A implemented with a macro that uses declare_directory to produce a set of files:
output = ctx.actions.declare_directory("selected")
Names of those files are not known in advance. The implementation returns the directory created by declare_directory with the following:
return DefaultInfo(
files = depset([output]),
)
Rule A is included in "srcs" attribute of rule B. Rule B is also implemented with a macro. Unfortunately the list of files passed to B implementation through "srcs" attribute only contains the "selected" directory created by rule A instead of files residing in that directory.
I know that Args class supports expansion of directories so I could pass names of all files in "selected" directory to a single action. What I need, however, is a separate action for every individual file for parallelism and caching. What is the best way to achieve that?
This is one of the intended use cases of directory outputs (called TreeArtifacts in the implementation), and it's implemented using ActionTemplate:
https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/blob/c2100ad420618bb53754508da806b5624209d9be/src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/actions/ActionTemplate.java#L24-L57
However, this is not exposed to Starlark, and has only a couple usages currently, in the Android rules AndroidBinary.java and C++ rules CcCompilationHelper.java. The Android rules and C++ rules are going to be migrated over to Starlark, so this functionality might eventually be made available in Starlark, but I'm not sure of any concrete timelines. It would probably be good to file a feature request on Github.
Let's say I have a rule like this.
foo(
name = "helloworld",
myarray = [
":bar",
"//path/to:qux",
],
)
In this case, myarray is static.
However, I want it to be given by cli, like
bazel run //:helloworld --myarray=":bar,//path/to:qux,:baz,:another"
How is this possible?
Thanks
To get exactly what you're asking for, Bazel would need to support LABEL_LIST in Starlark-defined command line flags, which are documented here:
https://docs.bazel.build/versions/2.1.0/skylark/lib/config.html
and here: https://docs.bazel.build/versions/2.1.0/skylark/config.html
Unfortunately that's not implemented at the moment.
If you don't actually need a list of labels (i.e., to create dependencies between targets), then maybe STRING_LIST will work for you.
If you do need a list of labels, and the different possible values are known, then you can use --define, config_setting(), and select():
https://docs.bazel.build/versions/2.1.0/configurable-attributes.html
The question is, what are you really after. Passing variable, array into the bazel build/run isn't really possible, well not as such and not (mostly) without (very likely unwanted) side effects. Aren't you perhaps really just looking into passing arguments directly to what is being run by the run? I.e. pass it to the executable itself, not bazel?
There are few ways you could sneak stuff in (you'd also in most cases need to come up with a syntax to pass data on CLI and unpack the array in a rule), but many come with relatively substantial price.
You can define your array in a bzl file and load it from where the rule uses it. You can then dump the bzl content rewriting your build/run configuration (also making it obvious, traceable) and load the bits from the rule (only affecting the rule loading and using the variable). E.g, BUILD file:
load(":myarray.bzl", "myarray")
foo(
name = "helloworld",
myarray = myarray,
],
)
And you can then call your build:
$ echo 'myarray=[":bar", "//path/to:qux", ":baz", ":another"]' > myarray.bzl
$ bazel run //:helloworld
Which you can of course put in a single wrapper script. If this really needs to be a bazel array, this one is probably the cleanest way to do that.
--workspace_status_command: you can collection information about your environment, add either or both of the resulting files (depending on whether the inputs are meant to invalidate the rule results or not, you could use volatile or stable status files) as a dependency of your rule and process the incoming file in the what is being executed by the rule (at which point one would wonder why not pass it to as its command line arguments directly). If using stable status file, also each other rule depending on it is invalidated by any change.
You can do similar thing by using --action_env. From within the executable/tool/script underpinning the rule, you can directly access defined environmental variable. However, this also means environment of each rule is affected (not just the one you're targeting); and again, why would it parse the information from environment and not accept arguments on the command line.
There is also --define, but you would not really get direct access it's value as much as you could select() a choice out of possible options.
I want to create a tarball of a binary and all libs it depends upon using pkg_tar(). I can retrieve a list of the binary's dependencies with
deps = native.existing_rule('my_binary')['deps']
However, the items in the list lack the #repo_name// prefix that was specified in the cc_binary() rule. For example, #system//:ace becomes :ace; when I try to operate on :ace, bazel rightfully tells me there is no such target.
I've looked through the entire dictionary returned by native.existing_rule and don't see a way to find the missing info. Is it not possible to retrieve this information with native.existing_rule or similar?
I know I can write a macro that creates the cc_binary target and the pkg_tar target, sharing the list of deps between them. This would be more elegant - but it seems quite strange if the deps can't be retrieved from the rule.
Have you considered using aspects? You can attach an aspect to dependencies of a given target and propagate information (in this case, fully-qualified label strings?) up to the root.
Let me know if you need any additional guidance!
How can I add filters to skip some of the classes in a namespace/assembly. For example: SYM.UI is the base assembly and i want to skip SYM.UI.ViewModels. Writing the below filter but it is including all of them and not fulfilling my request:
+[SYM.UI*]* -[SYM.UI.ViewModels*]*
Kindly help me correcting this?
The opencover wiki is a good place to start.
The usage is described as +/-[modulefilter]typefilter (this is based on how you would see the types in IL; where the type filter also includes the namespace and module filter usually is the name of the assembly (without the file extension).
Thus to exclude your types you could use
+[SYM.UI]* -[SYM.UI]SYM.UI.ViewModels.*
NOTE: Exclusion filters take preference over inclusion filters.
You can use following:
"-filter:+[*]* -[SYM.UI]SYM.UI.ViewModels.*"
Note that the quotes must be around the -filter: part, too
I'm currently writing some functions that are related to lists that I could possibly be reused.
My question is:
Are there any conventions or best practices for organizing such functions?
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
Note that I'm not looking to fork and change the standard lists module, but to find a way to define new functions in a new module also called Lists, but avoid the consequent naming collisions by using some kind namespacing scheme.
Any advice or references would be appreciated.
Cheers.
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
No, so far as I know.
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
They are experimental and not generally used. You could have a module called lists in a different namespace, but you would have trouble calling functions from the standard module in this namespace.
I give you reasons why not to use lists:your_function() and instead use lists_extension:your_function():
Generally, the Erlang/OTP Design Guidelines state that each "Application" -- libraries are also an application -- contains modules. Now you can ask the system what application did introduce a specific module? This system would break when modules are fragmented.
However, I do understand why you would want a lists:your_function/N:
It's easier to use for the author of your_function, because he needs the your_function(...) a lot when working with []. When another Erlang programmer -- who knows the stdlb -- reads this code, he will not know what it does. This is confusing.
It looks more concise than lists_extension:your_function/N. That's a matter of taste.
I think this method would work on any distro:
You can make an application that automatically rewrites the core erlang modules of whichever distribution is running. Append your custom functions to the core modules and recompile them before compiling and running your own application that calls the custom functions. This doesn't require a custom distribution. Just some careful planning and use of the file tools and BIFs for compiling and loading.
* You want to make sure you don't append your functions every time. Once you rewrite the file, it will be permanent unless the user replaces the file later. Could use a check with module_info to confirm of your custom functions exist to decide if you need to run the extension writer.
Pseudo Example:
lists_funs() -> ["myFun() -> <<"things to do">>."].
extend_lists() ->
{ok, Io} = file:open(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH, [append]),
lists:foreach(fun(Fun) -> io:format(Io,"~s~n",[Fun]) end, lists_funs()),
file:close(Io),
c(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH).
* You may want to keep copies of the original modules to restore if the compiler fails that way you don't have to do anything heavy if you make a mistake in your list of functions and also use as source anytime you want to rewrite the module to extend it with more functions.
* You could use a list_extension module to keep all of the logic for your functions and just pass the functions to list in this function using funName(Args) -> lists_extension:funName(Args).
* You could also make an override system that searches for existing functions and rewrites them in a similar way but it is more complicated.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve and optimize this method. I use something similar to update some of my own modules at runtime, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work on core modules also.
i guess what you want to do is to have some of your functions accessible from the lists module. It is good that you would want to convert commonly used code into a library.
one way to do this is to test your functions well, and if their are fine, you copy the functions, paste them in the lists.erl module (WARNING: Ensure you do not overwrite existing functions, just paste at the end of the file). this file can be found in the path $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/src/lists.erl. Make sure that you add your functions among those exported in the lists module (in the -export([your_function/1,.....])), to make them accessible from other modules. Save the file.
Once you have done this, we need to recompile the lists module. You could use an EmakeFile. The contents of this file would be as follows:
{"src/*", [verbose,report,strict_record_tests,warn_obsolete_guard,{outdir, "ebin"}]}.
Copy that text into a file called EmakeFile. Put this file in the path: $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/EmakeFile.
Once this is done, go and open an erlang shell and let its pwd(), the current working directory be the path in which the EmakeFile is, i.e. $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/.
Call the function: make:all() in the shell and you will see that the module lists is recompiled. Close the shell.
Once you open a new erlang shell, and assuming you exported you functions in the lists module, they will be running the way you want, right in the lists module.
Erlang being open source allows us to add functionality, recompile and reload the libraries. This should do what you want, success.