-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 543
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avoid merge conflicts in MODULE.bazel.lock #2434
Comments
Previous analysis/comment on why we need to have the extension as non reproducible and include all of the contents in the main lock file. Please see the comment below for just looking at the
In terms of what
In general I don't see good alternatives here except for changes in bazel or dropping support for @fmeum are there any plans to make the bzlmod extensions being able to control what goes into the lock file? EDIT: Looking that this proposal has been already implemented, it does not seem that there is any other option. EDIT2: updated based on Richard's comment. |
Just looking at the I am not sure if there is anything better we can do - @fmeum, what would be the proposed behaviour here? If we pass things as labels in the rule, are we OK to pass |
but earlier in your post you say that having a second extension just reduces the problem, not avoids it? |
FYI, just did a quick experiment to see if
So it suggests me that bazel itself is adding hashes based on the input to the tag classes. |
The digest of the requirements.txt file seems to be added to the lock file, which triggers merge conflicts.
Related thread on Slack https://bazelbuild.slack.com/archives/C014RARENH0/p1731817466761249
Is this necessary?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: