Migrate to Bzlmod #57
Conversation
MODULE.bazel
Outdated
| bazel_dep(name = "rules_pkg", version = "1.0.1") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "rules_scala_annex") | ||
|
|
||
| rules_scala_annex_version = "bzlmod-migration" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Wait until we've merged Migrate to Bzlmod rules_scala#74 and update this.
| @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | |||
| startup --expand_configs_in_place | |||
|
|
|||
| common --@rules_scala_annex//rules/scala:scala-toolchain=zinc_3 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this something all users of Annex will need to do? If so, is it in the README for that ruleset?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope, this is only necessary if you want to override the default Scala toolchain. It's explained here:
https://github.com/lucidsoftware/rules_scala/blob/74960c12dfc2487cd257c2a49d5d4e1c6cfb1d44/docs/newdocs/scala_versions.md
Let me know if I can make it clearer in any way.
MODULE.bazel
Outdated
| module(name = "rules_play_routes") | ||
|
|
||
| bazel_dep(name = "bazel_skylib", version = "1.7.1") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "buildifier_prebuilt", version = "7.3.1") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we mark all of the deps that we can as dev_dependency? I think this is one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See my comment here:
lucidsoftware/rules_scala#74 (comment)
MODULE.bazel
Outdated
| bazel_dep(name = "buildifier_prebuilt", version = "7.3.1") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "rules_java", version = "7.11.1") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "rules_jvm_external", version = "6.4") | ||
| bazel_dep(name = "rules_pkg", version = "1.0.1") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is another dev_dependency
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See my comment here:
lucidsoftware/rules_scala#74 (comment)
MODULE.bazel
Outdated
| urls = ["https://github.com/lucidsoftware/rules_scala/archive/refs/heads/{}.zip".format(rules_scala_annex_version)], | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| bazel_dep(name = "stardoc", version = "0.7.1") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this dep intentionally below the others or can it be moved up with the others?
Also I think this can be marked as dev_dependency
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to keep the archive_override call close to the bazel_dep call for rules_scala_annex. That way, it's not confusing where rules_scala_annex is coming from or what version we're using.
Also, see my comment here:
lucidsoftware/rules_scala#74 (comment)
MODULE.bazel
Outdated
|
|
||
| specs2_version = "4.20.8" | ||
|
|
||
| zinc_version = "1.10.1" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Scope creep, but could we update this to 1.10.4 while we're at it? Annex is already on that version, so it shouldn't require anymore work besides just updating the number and generating the lock file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure thing. I refrained from updating any versions in the lucidsoftware/rules_scala_annex PR because I considered it scope creep, but this is a simple change.
jadenPete
force-pushed
the
bzlmod-migration
branch
from
bdc6f9f to
cc66237
Compare
jadenPete
force-pushed
the
bzlmod-migration
branch
from
04335c0 to
7edf46f
Compare
No description provided.