[feature request] Consider moving bzl_library.bzl into @bazel_tools

[jmillikin]

Description of the feature request:

Skylib's bzl_library.bzl provides a StarlarkLibraryInfo provider and bzl_library rule, which are used for aggregating .bzl rules files for use by other analysis tools.

The definition of that provider and rule are quite stable (basically unchanged since 2018), and it has no dependencies on any other part of skylib.

The natural way to use that file is to load it from every BUILD file in a ruleset, like this:

# rules_example/example/BUILD
load("@bazel_skylib//:bzl_library.bzl", "bzl_library")

bzl_library(
    name = "bzl_srcs",
    srcs = ["defs.bzl", "repository.bzl", "toolchain.bzl"],
    deps = ["//example/internal:bzl_srcs"],
)

However, since the load needs to fetch skylib before evaluation continues, this means that skylib becomes a hard dependency for every client of the ruleset.

Given that the bzl_library.bzl file is generic, broadly useful, and very stable, could it be bundled into @bazel_tools instead?

[comius]

cc @aiuto @brandjon
This was discussed before. What were the conclusion, should we do it?

[comius]

@brandjon please triage

[aiuto]

IIRC, the discussion just sort of faded away.

I would like to seeStarlarkLibraryInfo and maybe bzl_library shipped with Bazel. But I also want the ability to replace the implementation of each with a repository local one. While trying to create another ultra low-level part of the stack (rules_license), what I have found that I want is the ability to locally override individual files in @bazel_tools. For example, I want to be able to replace http_archive at the workspace level, even if others are loading from @bazel_tools

Currently I am at a split opinion here. StarlarkLibraryInfo is a fundamental constant, because Stardoc breaks unless everyone depends on the same instance of it, so moving it to @bazel_tools does seem right (in spite of our desire to prune tools). bzl_library I would like to be able to override locally without having to vendor in all skylib.

But writing this helped me clarify a thought. What I want to be able to declare is a workspace wide replacement for the path of any load(). That way I could create my own http_archive or bzl_library without having to completely replace skylib or tools.

[fmeum]

Instead of moving bzl_library into bazel_tools, how about moving it into a separate repo that doesn't contain anything else and just remains lightweight forever?

Skylib could add this repo to its dependencies and continue to forward the provider for backwards compatibility.

[jmillikin]

skylib itself is not large (36 KB); the main issue is that it's a load-time dependency that all downstream users of a ruleset must declare. It's the transitive mandatory book-keeping that's a problem.

Maybe the answer is to have more bazel_tools-ish repos that get bundled into Bazel, but are designed to be modular and user-replaceable? You could imagine something like this:

load("@bazel_tools2_starlark//:bzl_library.bzl", "bzl_library")

where github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-tools2 is a repo, it contains files `starlark/{WORKSPACE, bzl_library.bzl}``, and it behaves the same as every other external repository except for having a "default" version bundled in with Bazel.

(The same could maybe be done with http_archive and friends)

[aiuto]

Default versions of built in small repositories would help with rules_license as well. Eventually, everything depends on @rules_license//rules:license.bzl. It is a pain to include everywhere, so having it built in is a nice convenience. But it must be user replacable for those who want to mod the behavior.

[brandjon]

See new proposal for a native bzl_library rule, and discussion here.

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Bazel repository! This issue has been marked as stale since it has not had any activity in the last 1+ years. It will be closed in the next 90 days unless any other activity occurs. If you think this issue is still relevant and should stay open, please post any comment here and the issue will no longer be marked as stale.

[aiuto]

I still think this is a good idea, but it is probably too late. Since everyone uses bzl library, they have to depend on Skylib and Skylib uses other rules. So we have a horrible knot of mutual dependency.

…

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024, 9:33 PM github-actions[bot] ***@***.***> wrote: Thank you for contributing to the Bazel repository! This issue has been marked as stale since it has not had any activity in the last 1+ years. It will be closed in the next 90 days unless any other activity occurs. If you think this issue is still relevant and should stay open, please post any comment here and the issue will no longer be marked as stale. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18391 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXHHHE6RBTAJRXIYK4PQGDZ5LWPHAVCNFSM6AAAAABQUJNYB2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMZZGE3DENRSGM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jmillikin]

This is a super-ugly hack, but would it be possible to use getattr to break the dependency loop?

# bazel-skylib/internal/starlark_library_info.bzl
StarlarkLibraryInfo = provider(
    "Information on contained Starlark rules.",
    fields = {
        "srcs": "Top level rules files.",
        "transitive_srcs": "Transitive closure of rules files required for " +
                           "interpretation of the srcs",
    },
)

# bazel-skylib/bzl_library.bzl
load("@bazel_tools//:something_that_already_exists.bzl", "symbol_that_already_exists")
load("//internal:starlark_library_info.bzl", _StarlarkLibraryInfo = StarlarkLibraryInfo)

# Using a symbol in @bazel_tools that already exists in older Bazel versions (so the load succeeds),
# re-export its StarlarkLibraryInfo from skylib if present.
StarlarkLibraryInfo = getattr(symbol_that_already_exists, "StarlarkLibraryInfo", _StarlarkLibraryInfo)

# Alternative: add StarlarkLibraryInfo as builtin, which avoids the need to find
# an already-existing part of @bazel_tools to add on to.
StarlarkLibraryInfo = getattr(native, "StarlarkLibraryInfo", _StarlarkLibraryInfo)

The problem isn't the dependency mesh exactly, it's avoiding a mandatory minimum Bazel version bump for skylib, which means there needs to be some way to discover whether the current Bazel version has StarlarkLibraryInfo before trying to load() something that would fail on older Bazels.

[fmeum]

We have this machinery already in bazel_features: https://github.com/bazel-contrib/bazel_features/blob/main/private/globals.bzl

However, for something as foundational as skylib, adding new WORKSPACE deps may be prohibitively breaking. Once we could assume that everyone is on Bzlmod (even with Bazel 6), the migration would be really easy.

[Wyverald]

Note that in the latest versions of skylib bzl_library can take on filegroups as deps. StarlarkLibraryInfo doesn't contain anything that DefaultInfo doesn't already have. (Latest versions of stardoc can also directly consume filegroup targets IIRC.)