-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 152
js_binary and js_run_binary to support invocation across bazel workspaces #2344
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
|
@f-luo could you try prefixing the chdir value with this in js_binary itself? That would then close #2275. |
I do think that would address it more broadly. My only concern is that doing it at the Unless we also detect the presence of Perhaps someone from |
|
I agree this should be changed in js_binary. I don't think there are any existing functional use cases that would be broken by stripping |
|
Okay, that sounds good. I can take a stab at it. But as an FYI I will be traveling for the next 2 weeks, so will come back to this afterwards... unless anyone else would like to drive it in the meantime :) |
|
@f-luo since you're updating this... can you try reproducing the issue to demonstrate a) what's broken and b) that your fix works? Most likely we'd need to add an |
|
@jbedard , thanks for checking in. Just repro'ed it on the latest The fix in this PR does fix it. More specifically I tried: From same workspace as //ui:
From another bazel workspace:
The behavior is now consistent. I like the idea of have a test here. Let me move some stuff around and add coverage here, thank you. P.S. seems like one of the CI workflows failed due to disk issue: For example: |
|
It would be great if we could get a super simple test demonstrating it. If not simple then maybe just converting the nextjs example to an e2e test?
Yeah, sorry the GH runners seem overloaded atm and people have been busy. I've been spamming the re-run button but you might not have permission to do that. I hope just testing locally is enough for you while working on this PR? |
|
Yup, np! Just added a simple e2e test. I wasn't sure if there's a hook somewhere to automate running e2e. I've testing via: Let me know if there's anything I need to do in addition, happy to iterate on this. Thanks again! |
|
Great, that is nice and simple (a lot simpler then involving nextjs in a test) 👍 We might be able to avoid the test.sh script, but otherwise this LGTM, thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
|
I think we just need to add the e2e test to |
|
@alexeagle @dzbarsky can you take a look at the js_binary changes being done here? WDYT? |



Addresses issue: #2343
Changes are visible to end-users: yes
Test plan