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 notice that the toolchains for helm and kustomize are implemented using custom (and private) providers, and the executables are referred through these providers;
kustomize_tool=ctx.toolchains[_kustomize_toolchain_type].kustomizeinfo.toolhelm_tool=Noneargs=ctx.actions.args()
args.add(_runfile_path(ctx, kustomization.target_file))
ifkustomization.requires_helm:
info=ctx.toolchains[_helm_toolchain_type].helminfoifnotinfo:
fail("No Helm toolchain is available; unable to proceed with invoking kustomize without it")
helm_tool=info.tool
We were planning on using the excellent toolchain_utils that ARM is publishing to wrap our binary management system, but since the toolchain implementation is not using the executable field on platform_common.ToolchainInfo, we cannot do that.
I notice that the toolchains for helm and kustomize are implemented using custom (and private) providers, and the executables are referred through these providers;
We were planning on using the excellent toolchain_utils that ARM is publishing to wrap our binary management system, but since the toolchain implementation is not using the
executable
field onplatform_common.ToolchainInfo
, we cannot do that.Would you be open to using the
executable
field on the ToolchainInfo provider instead to pass the path to the rules from the toolchain to make it easier to BYOB (Bring Your Own Binary)?Ref: https://gitlab.arm.com/bazel/toolchain_utils/-/blob/main/toolchain/info/rule.bzl?ref_type=heads
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: