You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have a use case where I'd like to use the py_binary from rules_py as the backend of ros2_py_binary instead of the default one from rules_python. My current solution is a local patch. Would there be any issues with allowing customization from the user? We could probably simply expose the target parameter and default it to None. If it's set, we'll use it. Otherwise, we use the variant from rules_python just like today. What do you think? Am I missing anything? If not, I would put up a PR with this change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I actually tried that, but Bazel told me I was not allowed to use that macro. Looks like macros with leading underscore are automatically made private.
I have a use case where I'd like to use the
py_binary
from rules_py as the backend ofros2_py_binary
instead of the default one fromrules_python
. My current solution is a local patch. Would there be any issues with allowing customization from the user? We could probably simply expose thetarget
parameter and default it toNone
. If it's set, we'll use it. Otherwise, we use the variant fromrules_python
just like today. What do you think? Am I missing anything? If not, I would put up a PR with this change.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: