#17545 might have broken bazel_tools in downstream pipelines #17874
Comments
comius
added
P2
|
The issue looks related to non-bzlmod usage and a requirement to load rules_python in some cases. Possible fix is to update WORKSPACE suffixes to load rules_python. |
This is needed to correctly load py_proto_library from @bazel tools. Addresses: bazelbuild/bazel#17874
The file was removed in Bazel@HEAD in bazelbuild/bazel#17545 Addresses: bazelbuild/bazel#17874
This fixes a failure in downstream, that needs a newer version of rules_python, to support py_proto_library. Addresses: bazelbuild/bazel#17874
|
The problem is created because of an older rules_python imported through WORKSPACE in various project. I produced PRs to upgrade the version.
|
This is needed to correctly load py_proto_library from @bazel tools. Addresses: bazelbuild/bazel#17874
|
Bazel@HEAD + rules_kotlin@bazelbuild/rules_kotlin@395a525 still failing: maybe more fixes are needed? |
rules_kotlin are still failing because they get an old version of rules_python from rules_proto... it's no-bzlmod dependency hell. Any advice how to fix this, without adding more mess into the system? |
|
Oh, do you mean the upgrade in https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_kotlin/pull/958/files#diff-def3077745bf807244580cf012e9d27574b9f337415a6734a186572b424c3badR103 didn't actually take affect because rules_proto introduces an older python version in WORKSPACE first? If so, rules_kotlin needs to figure out a way to prefer the dependencies they declared. |
|
I'm late to this, but for buildfarm's front, it looks like we're not able to depend upon bazel_tools as a result of this change without drastic changes that incorporate bzlmod (which I'm just learning about) or specifying both rules_python and rules_proto, both of which we did without before this. Am I missing something? Is there supposed to be an easier migration for us not using an experimental system? |
|
Some followup on this. I got local builds to work by importing your indicated rules_python versions, but those versions break python3.6 compatibility indicated bazelbuild/rules_python#818, and this is the python version available on the support-indicated ubuntu1804 version matching bazel CI validation. Attempting to use a supported version with the hermetic toolchain does not resolve the problem, and fails on our integration tests, which run as root under CI containers. This is a pretty big headache for the invalidation of a previously working toolset under bazel_tools, which only indicates that it needs rules_python 0.4.0 under its MODULE, in disagreement with the requirement for @rules_python//python:proto.bzl, nonexistent at 0.4.0. |
@bazel_tools//src/main/protocol: has become untraversable without a compatible rules_python for targets that we do not use. Maintain compatibility with bazel HEAD CI by removing dependencies on the package. References bazelbuild/bazel#17874
@bazel_tools//src/main/protocol: has become untraversable without a compatible rules_python for targets that we do not use. Maintain compatibility with bazel HEAD CI by removing dependencies on the package. References bazelbuild/bazel#17874
@bazel_tools//src/main/protocol: has become untraversable without a compatible rules_python for targets that we do not use. Maintain compatibility with bazel HEAD CI by removing dependencies on the package. References bazelbuild/bazel#17874
|
I've removed the reference to @bazel_tools//src/main/protobuf. We will not be using it going forward due to this break and the forced obsolescence/explicit rules_python dependency for a target+language we are not using. Buildfarm should be passing in the disabled stream. |
|
@werkt Thanks for fixing it! In general, I think it's a good thing to not depend on protobuf stuff through I can confirm Buildfarm is now green with Bazel@HEAD, see https://buildkite.com/bazel/bazel-at-head-plus-disabled/builds/1646, re-enabling it now. |
…1173) The file was removed in Bazel@HEAD in bazelbuild/bazel#17545 This fixes failures when using rules_python with Bazel@HEAD. Addresses: bazelbuild/bazel#17874
This fixes a failure in downstream, that needs a newer version of rules_python, to support py_proto_library. Addresses: bazelbuild/bazel#17874
|
https://buildkite.com/bazel/bazel-at-head-plus-downstream/builds/2995 |
Description of the bug:
The downstream pipeline (https://buildkite.com/bazel/bazel-at-head-plus-downstream/builds/2921) has several failures due to files in @bazel_tools failing to load
@rules_python//python:proto.bzl:The problems started in #2895, which coincides with #17545
What's the simplest, easiest way to reproduce this bug? Please provide a minimal example if possible.
No response
Which operating system are you running Bazel on?
No response
What is the output of
bazel info release?No response
If
bazel info releasereturnsdevelopment versionor(@non-git), tell us how you built Bazel.No response
What's the output of
git remote get-url origin; git rev-parse master; git rev-parse HEAD?No response
Have you found anything relevant by searching the web?
No response
Any other information, logs, or outputs that you want to share?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: