Comparing changes

Fixes #483

#438) Hi! This fixes #437. This is my first issue so I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do. Tell me if this is good or you want me to change anything :)

Picks up bazel-contrib/.github#25 Also test Bazel 8 on BCR presubmit. --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no

) Closes #466 - Make resolutions consistent between `py_binary` and `py_test` - Allow a list to be passed to `from_requirements` - Add an example of `virtual_deps` feature --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: yes - Searched for relevant documentation and updated as needed: yes - Breaking change (forces users to change their own code or config): no - Suggested release notes appear below: > - Fix: Make resolutions consistent between `py_binary` and `py_test` > - Feature: Allow a list to be passed to `from_requirements` > - Docs: Add an example of `virtual_deps` feature ### Test plan - Manual testing; please provide instructions so we can reproduce: Added an example

May be useful to assert that coverage support is working, since we have a hard time compiling rust tools under --collect_code_coverage --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no

upstream bazel-contrib/bazel-lib#989 in `bazel-lib` released with `v2.10.0` now contain `--options gzip:!timestamp` by default. This leads to warnings when a downstream projects uses a recent version of `bazel-lib`. --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no ### Test plan - Covered by existing test cases

If the user runs with coverage enabled, Bazel sets an environment variable pointing to the files to be instrumented. When that's present, attempt to import the coverage.py package, and use it to instrument and gather coverage, writing lcov directly. Note the user must provide the coverage.py package and it must be version 6.3 or greater, so that lcov reporting is built-in. Fixes #353 Tested: `bazel test --collect_code_coverage --combined_report=lcov -s examples/pytest:pytest_test`

Follow up of #474 running buildifier on all files. A follow up PR will fix the remaining `buildifier-lint` warnings and add pre-commit to CI similar to bazel-contrib/rules-template#130. Co-authored-by: Alex Eagle <alex@aspect.dev>

Adds an example of test fixtures and `chdir`. This option was quite hard to discover, however test fixtures are common. Co-authored-by: Alex Eagle <alex@aspect.dev>

Follow up of #480 adding a pre-commit GH action, fixing last formatting, and remaining buildifier warnings (split in 3 commit) --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no

One of the tools, maybe `prettier` creates a `node_modules` folder locally which should be ignored. --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no ### Test plan no testing required

It's named `binary` rather than `py_binary`

So we can see that it's working, based on comments that get posted to the PR. Notes: - I had to move the files to a `src` subfolder so I can use an `--instrumentation_filter` that doesn't include `//...` since that's causing external repos to get instrumented. - The GHA setup here is fighting me on referencing the combined_report in bazel-out so I just look for **/coverage.dat - actually it's not required to ask bazel to merge the coverage reports for this case. --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no ### Test plan - New test cases added

Set up an Aspect Workflows pipeline to build rules_py. --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: no ### Test plan - Manual testing; please provide instructions so we can reproduce: Yeet --------- Co-authored-by: Alex Eagle <alex@aspect.dev>

Automated typo fixes --- ### Changes are visible to end-users: yes Typos were mainly fixed in the docs/docstrings --------- Co-authored-by: Alex Eagle <alex@aspect.build>

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Comparing changes

Open a pull request

Commits on Jan 17, 2025

Commits on Jan 20, 2025

Commits on Jan 22, 2025

Commits on Jan 23, 2025

Commits on Jan 24, 2025

This comparison is taking too long to generate.