Let module extensions track calls to `Label()` #20742

Wyverald · 2024-01-04T01:05:23Z

... that use repo mapping. This is a rather obscure case of the lockfile being stale; if the Label() constructor is called in an extension impl function, and that call uses repo mapping of any form (i.e. the argument looks like @foo//bar), then we need to be ready to rerun the extension if @foo were to suddenly map to something else.

I also did a minor refactoring in SingleExtensionEvalFunction around the logic to decide whether the locked extension is up-to-date. Right now we perform a "diff" between the locked extension and what we expect to be up-to-date, and if a "diff" is found and --lockfile_mode=error, we basically perform a diff again. We also don't short circuit; that is, if the transitive bzl digest has changed, there's no point in seeing whether any files have changed, but we do right now.

A follow-up will be sent to fix the analogous bug for repo rules.

Fixes #20721.

... that use repo mapping. This is a rather obscure case of the lockfile being stale; if the `Label()` constructor is called in an extension impl function, and that call uses repo mapping of any form (i.e. the argument looks like `@foo//bar`), then we need to be ready to rerun the extension if `@foo` were to suddenly map to something else. I also did a minor refactoring in `SingleExtensionEvalFunction` around the logic to decide whether the locked extension is up-to-date. Right now we perform a "diff" between the locked extension and what we expect to be up-to-date, and if a "diff" is found *and* `--lockfile_mode=error`, we basically perform a diff again. We also don't short circuit; that is, if the transitive bzl digest has changed, there's no point in seeing whether any files have changed, but we do right now. A follow-up will be sent to fix the analogous bug for repo rules. Fixes #20721.

fmeum · 2024-01-04T07:33:30Z

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/SingleExtensionEvalFunction.java

-        && envVariables.equals(lockedExtension.getEnvVariables())) {
+    LockedExtensionDiffDetector diffDetector = new LockedExtensionDiffDetector(/* recordDiffMessages= */
+        lockfileMode.equals(LockfileMode.ERROR));
+    diffDetector.detectDiffs(extensionId, env, extension, lockedExtension,


Instead of having to call the constructor followed by this method, could we make his method static and have it create an immutable LockedExtensionDiff instead? I could see this making it harder to misuse.

the point of the inner class is more to make control flow less verbose. to emphasize that, I moved the detectDiffs part back into this method, and renamed the inner class to just DiffRecorder. hopefully that makes the intent clearer.

I still preferred it as a separate method, whether in the inner class or directly in the main class is up to you.

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/SingleExtensionEvalFunction.java

katre · 2024-01-04T14:24:39Z

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/GsonTypeAdapterUtil.java

@@ -283,6 +301,68 @@ public Optional<T> read(JsonReader jsonReader) throws IOException {
    }
  }

+  /**
+   * Converts Guava tables into a JSON array of 3-tuples (one per cell). Each 3-tuple is a JSON


I don't understand this comment: can you provide a small example JSON to clarify?

added a small snippet.

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/GsonTypeAdapterUtil.java

katre · 2024-01-04T14:29:23Z

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/GsonTypeAdapterUtil.java

+                throws IOException {
+              jsonWriter.beginArray();
+              for (Table.Cell<Object, Object, Object> cell : t.cellSet()) {
+                jsonWriter.beginArray();


I think this is my confusion with the Javadoc: there aren't any tuples here (are tuples even a json concept?), just an array of arrays.

tuples are not JSON concepts. I wanted to emphasize that each "sub-array" has exactly 3 elements, so conceptually a 3-tuple.

katre · 2024-01-04T14:30:45Z

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/SingleExtensionEvalFunction.java

-        && envVariables.equals(lockedExtension.getEnvVariables())) {
+    LockedExtensionDiffDetector diffDetector = new LockedExtensionDiffDetector(/* recordDiffMessages= */
+        lockfileMode.equals(LockfileMode.ERROR));
+    diffDetector.detectDiffs(extensionId, env, extension, lockedExtension,


src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/bazel/bzlmod/SingleExtensionEvalFunction.java

src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/cmdline/Label.java

... that use repo mapping. This is a rather obscure case of the lockfile being stale; if the `Label()` constructor is called in an extension impl function, and that call uses repo mapping of any form (i.e. the argument looks like `@foo//bar`), then we need to be ready to rerun the extension if `@foo` were to suddenly map to something else. I also did a minor refactoring in `SingleExtensionEvalFunction` around the logic to decide whether the locked extension is up-to-date. Right now we perform a "diff" between the locked extension and what we expect to be up-to-date, and if a "diff" is found *and* `--lockfile_mode=error`, we basically perform a diff again. We also don't short circuit; that is, if the transitive bzl digest has changed, there's no point in seeing whether any files have changed, but we do right now. A follow-up will be sent to fix the analogous bug for repo rules. Fixes bazelbuild#20721. Closes bazelbuild#20742. PiperOrigin-RevId: 595818144 Change-Id: Id660b7a659a7f2e4dde19c16784c2ab18a9ceb69

... that use repo mapping. This is a rather obscure case of the lockfile being stale; if the `Label()` constructor is called in an extension impl function, and that call uses repo mapping of any form (i.e. the argument looks like `@foo//bar`), then we need to be ready to rerun the extension if `@foo` were to suddenly map to something else. I also did a minor refactoring in `SingleExtensionEvalFunction` around the logic to decide whether the locked extension is up-to-date. Right now we perform a "diff" between the locked extension and what we expect to be up-to-date, and if a "diff" is found *and* `--lockfile_mode=error`, we basically perform a diff again. We also don't short circuit; that is, if the transitive bzl digest has changed, there's no point in seeing whether any files have changed, but we do right now. A follow-up will be sent to fix the analogous bug for repo rules. Fixes #20721. Closes #20742. PiperOrigin-RevId: 595818144 Change-Id: Id660b7a659a7f2e4dde19c16784c2ab18a9ceb69 Co-authored-by: Xdng Yng <[email protected]>

In the same vein as #20742, we record all repo mapping entries used during the load of a .bzl file too, including any of its `load()` statements and calls to `Label()` that contain an apparent repo name. See #20721 (comment) for a more detailed explanation for this change, and the test cases in this commit for more potential triggers. Fixes #20721

In the same vein as #20742, we record all repo mapping entries used during the load of a .bzl file too, including any of its `load()` statements and calls to `Label()` that contain an apparent repo name. See #20721 (comment) for a more detailed explanation for this change, and the test cases in this commit for more potential triggers. Fixes #20721 Closes #20830. PiperOrigin-RevId: 597351525 Change-Id: I8f6ed297b81d55f7476a93bdc6668e1e1dcbe536

... that use repo mapping. This is a rather obscure case of the lockfile being stale; if the `Label()` constructor is called in an extension impl function, and that call uses repo mapping of any form (i.e. the argument looks like `@foo//bar`), then we need to be ready to rerun the extension if `@foo` were to suddenly map to something else. I also did a minor refactoring in `SingleExtensionEvalFunction` around the logic to decide whether the locked extension is up-to-date. Right now we perform a "diff" between the locked extension and what we expect to be up-to-date, and if a "diff" is found *and* `--lockfile_mode=error`, we basically perform a diff again. We also don't short circuit; that is, if the transitive bzl digest has changed, there's no point in seeing whether any files have changed, but we do right now. A follow-up will be sent to fix the analogous bug for repo rules. Fixes #20721. Closes #20742. PiperOrigin-RevId: 595818144 Change-Id: Id660b7a659a7f2e4dde19c16784c2ab18a9ceb69

In the same vein as #20742, we record all repo mapping entries used during the load of a .bzl file too, including any of its `load()` statements and calls to `Label()` that contain an apparent repo name. See #20721 (comment) for a more detailed explanation for this change, and the test cases in this commit for more potential triggers. Fixes #20721 Closes #20830. PiperOrigin-RevId: 597351525 Change-Id: I8f6ed297b81d55f7476a93bdc6668e1e1dcbe536

Wyverald requested a review from fmeum January 4, 2024 01:05

Wyverald requested review from a team and meteorcloudy as code owners January 4, 2024 01:05

Wyverald requested review from katre and removed request for a team January 4, 2024 01:05

github-actions bot added team-Configurability platforms, toolchains, cquery, select(), config transitions team-ExternalDeps External dependency handling, remote repositiories, WORKSPACE file. awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels Jan 4, 2024

fmeum approved these changes Jan 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

katre requested changes Jan 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

Wyverald added 2 commits January 4, 2024 14:28

review comments

64417c4

make sure it compiles first you idiot!

7120675

Wyverald added awaiting-PR-merge PR has been approved by a reviewer and is ready to be merge internally and removed awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels Jan 4, 2024

more comments

070344b

katre approved these changes Jan 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

copybara-service bot closed this in 5cba057 Jan 4, 2024

github-actions bot removed the awaiting-PR-merge PR has been approved by a reviewer and is ready to be merge internally label Jan 4, 2024

iancha1992 mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2024

[7.0.1] Let module extensions track calls to Label() #20750

Merged

Wyverald deleted the wyv-track-label branch January 10, 2024 00:33

Wyverald mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2024

Let .bzl files record their usages of repo mapping #20830

Closed

Wyverald mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2024

[7.0.1] Let .bzl files record their usages of repo mapping #20848

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Let module extensions track calls to `Label()` #20742

Let module extensions track calls to `Label()` #20742

Wyverald commented Jan 4, 2024

fmeum Jan 4, 2024

katre Jan 4, 2024

Wyverald Jan 4, 2024

katre Jan 4, 2024

katre Jan 4, 2024

Wyverald Jan 4, 2024

katre Jan 4, 2024

Wyverald Jan 4, 2024

katre Jan 4, 2024

Let module extensions track calls to Label() #20742

Let module extensions track calls to Label() #20742

Conversation

Wyverald commented Jan 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Let module extensions track calls to `Label()` #20742

Let module extensions track calls to `Label()` #20742