[Toolchain] Support multiple deno versions and os/arch

[TheGrizzlyDev]

Support multiple deno versions through a configurable build setting.
Support other version of os/arch other than linux/x86_64.

Nice to have:
toolchain download setup should be auto generated
list of versions should be limited to the ones actually supported

[alexeagle]

I have spent some time on this https://github.com/aspect-build/rules_deno/
Maybe we could collaborate on it?

[TheGrizzlyDev]

That would be lovely and I've been wanting to pick up this project again for a while. Would you be alright if we created an org and merged the 2 projects together? I was thinking of other tools for this ecosystem (like an equivalent to gazelle) in the future and this would keep things clean.

[alexeagle]

Of course I'm fond of keeping my rules repos in aspect-build org, but I can see why Engflow wouldn't want to sign a CLA there and I'm not tied to it.
github.com/bazel-contrib would be the next obvious GH org to be the home for it

Also I should be clear, I have very little time to contribute to this, and I'm also not sure if there's enough potential adoption to make it worth spending time.

[TheGrizzlyDev]

Sure, bazel-contrib would be a perfect place for it!

Same for me, I plan on contributing to this mostly on my spare time, so not much. How would you like to proceed then?

[alexeagle]

technically we need bazel-contrib/SIG-rules-authors#3 first

[TheGrizzlyDev]

1. Must have a clear owner (POC) - Either me or you would be fine, I don't mind
2. Must have clear readme outlining the goal of these rules, how to use them etc. - both repos have something in place, but I think we can improve a bit
3. Must have examples - we both have some, my repo has a few more granular tests that we can merge in
4. Must have tests that are running continuously - done
5. Must have an SLA of 2-3 weeks (exact timing TBD) - let's have a chat about this, but 2-3 weeks would be ok for me
6. Maybe: must have at least one more person that can approve PRs? - done
7. Maybe: must follow the same release pattern? - we can adopt it
   Anything else I could be missing?

[beingminimal]

Is there any update on this?

[TheGrizzlyDev]

Is there any update on this?

I'm about to start some work so that we can match the criteria for bazel-contrib and soon after maybe @alexeagle can help merging their rules in? Regardless I will soon start getting some work done on this @codecycleteam

Just out of curiosity, do you plan on using these rules for some project? If that was the case it'd be interesting to get some feedback and conversations going :)

[beingminimal]

@TheGrizzlyDev Thank you for the updates!
Yes, we are planning to use deno with bazel in our internal project. And definitely we would like to give feedback.
Mainly we are looking forward for the bazel rules for deno bundle and test command with latest version of deno toolchain.

[alexeagle]

@TheGrizzlyDev WDYT about starting from the commits on the aspect-build repo? It started from an earlier version of bazel-contrib/rules-template - I'll update it now to include the latest.

edit: take a look at https://github.com/aspect-build/rules_deno/pull/4/files ?

[TheGrizzlyDev]

@alexeagle sounds good to me, I don't mind which repo we use while migrating over to bazel-contrib. What features from mine would you need me to port over?

The PR lgtm, nice work!

[alexeagle]

Okay, merged that.
Filed the "process ticket" to get approval from the SIG to transfer the repo to bazel-contrib: bazel-contrib/SIG-rules-authors#48

As for what to add, looks like it's all your starlark rules, the deno_library, deno_binary, deno_test. Want to start with a PR against aspect-build/rules_deno?

[TheGrizzlyDev]

sgtm, thanks a lot for your help!