Resolve adhoc_tool, code_quality_tool execution dependencies relative to target location #20581
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
huonw
changed the title
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
huonw
force-pushed
the
huonw/20575-address
branch
from
40f0635 to
40c30fb
Compare
kaos
approved these changes
Feb 23, 2024
WorkerPants
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2024
… to target location (#20581) This PR fixes #20575 by adjusting the shared infrastructure for `adhoc_tool` and `code_quality_tool` to resolve the `execution_dependencies` field relative to the `adhoc_tool`/`code_quality_tool` target location, rather than relative to the `runnable=...` arg. I think this was a minor typo in #20255, and we didn't have tests covering it. I imagine it's common that the runnable and `..._tool` targets are often in the same BUILD file (in which case the behaviour is the same either way), but it's not impossible to have them be different (e.g. my work repo has a a few shared runnable that are used by more than one `adhoc_tool`). I think being relative to the target is easier to reason about, and this was the old behaviour of `adhoc_tool`. This PR also adds tests to confirm the behaviour of `execution_dependencies` (including its relative-path resolution behaviour), as well as the behaviour of `runnable_dependencies` while I'm there.
|
I tried to automatically cherry-pick this change back to each relevant milestone, so that it is available in those older releases of Pants. ✔️ 2.20.xSuccessfully opened #20608. Thanks again for your contributions! |
huonw
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2024
… to target location (Cherry-pick of #20581) (#20608) This PR fixes #20575 by adjusting the shared infrastructure for `adhoc_tool` and `code_quality_tool` to resolve the `execution_dependencies` field relative to the `adhoc_tool`/`code_quality_tool` target location, rather than relative to the `runnable=...` arg. I think this was a minor typo in #20255, and we didn't have tests covering it. I imagine it's common that the runnable and `..._tool` targets are often in the same BUILD file (in which case the behaviour is the same either way), but it's not impossible to have them be different (e.g. my work repo has a a few shared runnable that are used by more than one `adhoc_tool`). I think being relative to the target is easier to reason about, and this was the old behaviour of `adhoc_tool`. This PR also adds tests to confirm the behaviour of `execution_dependencies` (including its relative-path resolution behaviour), as well as the behaviour of `runnable_dependencies` while I'm there. Co-authored-by: Huon Wilson <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes #20575 by adjusting the shared infrastructure for
adhoc_toolandcode_quality_toolto resolve theexecution_dependenciesfield relative to theadhoc_tool/code_quality_tooltarget location, rather than relative to therunnable=...arg. I think this was a minor typo in #20255, and we didn't have tests covering it.I imagine it's common that the runnable and
..._tooltargets are often in the same BUILD file (in which case the behaviour is the same either way), but it's not impossible to have them be different (e.g. my work repo has a a few shared runnable that are used by more than oneadhoc_tool). I think being relative to the target is easier to reason about, and this was the old behaviour ofadhoc_tool.This PR also adds tests to confirm the behaviour of
execution_dependencies(including its relative-path resolution behaviour), as well as the behaviour ofrunnable_dependencieswhile I'm there.