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

Add validation actions for nogo outputs #3695

Open
tingilee opened this issue Sep 15, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #3707
Open

Add validation actions for nogo outputs #3695

tingilee opened this issue Sep 15, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #3707

Comments

@tingilee
Copy link
Contributor

What version of rules_go are you using?

0.40.0

What version of gazelle are you using?

0.28.0

What version of Bazel are you using?

6.3.0rc1

Does this issue reproduce with the latest releases of all the above?

Yes

What operating system and processor architecture are you using?

MacOS M1 Ventura and Linux AMD

Any other potentially useful information about your toolchain?

What did you do?

Set up nogo and ran bazel build //... across the monorepo which contains many static analysis errors.

What did you expect to see?

Should see an exhaustive list of all static analysis errors. This is very important as we're enabling static analysis for the first time across our monorepo.

What did you see instead?

With compilePkg and nogo being coupled, when nogo failed, the compilation also fails. Once compilePkg action fails, the targets that depend on the failed build target never run action of compilePkg. Therefore, bazel build //... only show a subset of errors.

I'd like to propose adding https://bazel.build/extending/rules#validation_actions in the current nogo implementation, and would be happy to contribute upstream. High level proposal is to add validation output here

outputs = outputs,
and add validation action runs in compilepkg.bzl.

@tingilee
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sluongng I found that you've shared design thoughts before: #3529 (comment) What would you recommend here?

@sluongng
Copy link
Contributor

I am in favor of the approach. However I am out of capacity to drive this change. So I would love to review any PR coming my way to make this happen.

@joeljeske joeljeske linked a pull request Sep 22, 2023 that will close this issue
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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants