Request: rename `includes` to `system_includes` in `cc_*` functions

[carlosgalvezp]

Currently, includes is misleading, since the name does not in any way reflect the fact that the headers will be included as system headers. This goes against developer expectations.

System headers should rarely be used on own code, because all C++ tools (compilers, static analyzers, etc) will ignore warnings in such headers.

It would be a lot clearer and easy to spot during code review if includes was renamed to system_includes.

[fmeum]

@buildbreaker2021 For context, is includes used for any first-party code in google3?

[comius]

The attribute is used in our third party.

Improving docs and renaming the attr could help.

[jerrymarino]

A good number of rules in iOS ecosystem add includes use this for both the objc and cc rules. One other consideration is some c++ compilers like clang provide a feature known as "SYSTEM include" path which often has a different usage than Bazel's -I or includes flag:

  -isystem <directory>    Add directory to SYSTEM include search path

[peakschris]

We use "includes =" a lot for our own includes. We also use it for 3rd party includes that we import via repo rules. It would be good to be able to get Bazel to apply -isystem for 3rd party includes and -I for ours.

I can think of a number of solutions. The simplest is perhaps a transitive_copts option that would give a lot of flexibility.

[carlosgalvezp]

To clarify: I do not want to remove includes. I want it to be renamed so it's more clear what it does, and avoids misuse.

[armandomontanez]

This is a huge stumbling block, would love to see an attribute rename to make this harder to get wrong.