Skip to content
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

Move library.bzl to rules_apple_patched_imports #765

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jerrymarino
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@jerrymarino jerrymarino changed the title [DNR] Move to patched_imports Move library to rules_apple_patched_imports Sep 12, 2023
@jerrymarino jerrymarino changed the title Move library to rules_apple_patched_imports Move library.bzl to rules_apple_patched_imports Sep 12, 2023
@jerrymarino jerrymarino marked this pull request as ready for review September 12, 2023 19:54
load("@build_bazel_rules_apple//apple:apple.bzl", "apple_dynamic_framework_import", "apple_static_framework_import")
load("//rules:apple_patched.bzl", "apple_dynamic_framework_import", "apple_static_framework_import")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any chance this could slow us down in the future when trying to bump rules_apple to pick up changes that affect these symbols?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think so, we've been running with this file pretty much since the beginning of the repo.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the apple_patched behavior used anywhere? It looks to me like it is dead code after we dropped Carthage/CocoaPods pre-building dependencies support. I don't think we ever exercised this code path in our consumption of rules_ios IIUC.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed AFAICT this was not being exercised? More details on your intent with this change would help.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You've got it - I will followup with this PR in a few days, we are working through some updates to get 6.x.x really working well.

Copy link
Collaborator

@luispadron luispadron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some more info on why this change is required would be great

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants