Conversation
|
This feels sort of incomplete. We should lift the code out of private and make sure the stardoc on it works so it shows up in the docs. |
17d8014 to
6d5bdcd
Compare
This makes it possible to write extensions for rules_pkg like custom installers or easily read the structure from existing pkg_* rules
6d5bdcd to
672c09e
Compare
cgrindel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure if feel qualified to approve the API change. @tonyaiuto do you want to elevate these to public scope?
|
@cgrindel i'll fix the pre-commit errors. Didn't notice it locally yet. For context: #996 (comment) |
|
Any update @tonyaiuto @cgrindel ? |
|
I am deferring to @tonyaiuto on how to proceed. |
|
Sorry for the slow response. It looks like it does things like Do you have a real world example of the need for that particular API? |
|
@aiuto i moved the functions into a public package after the suggestion in: #996 (comment) I can't share the code directly (internal policy...) but the gist is this:
Basically the "pkg-rules sandwich" My concrete use case is: Define a rich hirarchy of pkg_files/filegroups/etc, have a pkg_jfrog_* ruleset that generates a jf-cli upload specification from this defined structure. Afterwards use I found myself trying to read the different Providers of rules_pkg in my rule which ended up effectively duplicating e.g. process_src It works well when buildifiers private visibility check, but of course is always a risk and not advisable to depend on private details Hence my suggestion to expose these functions as a publicly usable interface to enable interfacing or injecting custom rules in the pkg-dependency graph Sry for the lengthy text^^ |
This alloes wo construct the mapping structures of rules_pkg internal representation and to extend based on pkg_* rules