Make one label repository-absolute again#3046
Merged
achew22 merged 1 commit intobazel-contrib:masterfrom Jan 18, 2022
Merged
Conversation
Changing this particular label to the str(Label(...)) pattern does not behave as expected (bazelbuild/bazel#14590). It is thus safer to revert back to the old form for now and instead rely on patches in a future renaming of io_bazel_rules_go to rules_go for the BCR.
Merged
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What type of PR is this?
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
Changing this particular label to the str(Label(...)) pattern does not
behave as expected (bazelbuild/bazel#14590).
It is thus safer to revert back to the old form for now and instead rely
on patches in a future renaming of io_bazel_rules_go to rules_go for the
BCR.
Which issues(s) does this PR fix?
Work towards #3020.
Other notes for review
@achew22 would probably be in the best position to review as this is a follow-up to #3038.