-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 278
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bazel 8.0.0 compatibility #1652
Comments
I noted in #1625, based on copious notes from cd22d88 (under But, the good news is, Bzlmod builds aren't affected by that particular problem, and Bzlmodification is in the home stretch. Once that lands, we can bump up the FWIW, I've been using rules_java 7.11.1 in my |
Ah. We have a continuation of the protobuf + ScalaPB saga from #1647. If I bump to rules_java 8.5.1 (and rules_cc 0.1.0), and stick with protobuf 21.7 (the current rules_scala version, via single_version_override) or protobuf 24.4 (the latest Bazel Central Registry protobuf module compatible with ScalaPB 0.11.17), I get: $ bazel build //src/... //test/... //third_party/... //scala_proto/...
ERROR: Skipping '//src/...': error loading package under directory 'src':
error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/io_utils':
at .../external/rules_java~/java/defs.bzl:16:6:
Label '@@protobuf~//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because
'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here:
'@@protobuf~//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'?
ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src':
error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/io_utils':
at .../external/rules_java~/java/defs.bzl:16:6:
Label '@@protobuf~//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because
'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here:
'@@protobuf~//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? The However, bumping ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 and Protobuf v28.3 did work. But as noted in #1647, committing the ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 bump would mean effectively forcing rules_scala users to upgrade to at least Protobuf v28.2 immediately. Maybe that's what we ought to do anyway, because clearly we don't want to block anyone from upgrading to Bazel 8. But we'd have to shout it from the rooftops—at the same time we try to persuade folks to switch from depending on Even so, rules_cc 0.0.9 and rules_java 7.9.0 still work with Protobuf v28.3 and ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1. That means we wouldn't leave Bazel 6 or 7 |
Ah, more info. The results from my last comment were from building with Bazel 7.4.1. Building with 8.0.0rc4 is not yet possible. First, I had to update to the highest versions of all dependencies in the Bazel module graph: bazel_dep(name = "rules_cc", version = "0.1.0")
bazel_dep(name = "rules_java", version = "8.5.1")
bazel_dep(name = "rules_proto", version = "7.0.2")
bazel_dep(name = "protobuf", version = "29.0-rc3", repo_name = "com_google_protobuf")
bazel_dep(name = "rules_python", version = "0.40.0", dev_dependency = True) I also bumped the following in PROTOBUF_JAVA_VERSION = "4.29.0-RC3" I had to add one, the other, or both of these lines to the load("@rules_java//java/common:java_common.bzl", "java_common")
load("@rules_java//java/common:java_info.bzl", "JavaInfo") But sadly, ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 and protobuf-java:4.29.0-RC3 aren't compatible: $ bazel build //src/... //test/... //third_party/... //scala_proto/...
ERROR: .../test/proto/BUILD:184:14:
ProtoScalaPBRule test/proto/nested_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar
failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed:
error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command
(from target //test/proto:nested_proto)
bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ...
(remaining 2 arguments skipped)
--jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError
at scalapb.options.compiler.Scalapb$.registerAllExtensions(Scalapb.scala:8)
at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:53)
at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51)
at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:217)
at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51)
at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121)
at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40)
at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.scala:18)
at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:60)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118)
at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:71)
at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:124)
at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38)
at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.scala:18)
at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:687)
at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$Transformation.run(Promise.scala:467)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183)
Caused by: com.google.protobuf.RuntimeVersion$ProtobufRuntimeVersionException:
Detected mismatched Protobuf Gencode/Runtime version suffixes when loading
scalapb.options.Scalapb: gencode 4.28.2, runtime 4.29.0-rc3.
Version suffixes must be the same.
at com.google.protobuf.RuntimeVersion.validateProtobufGencodeVersionImpl(RuntimeVersion.java:126)
at com.google.protobuf.RuntimeVersion.validateProtobufGencodeVersion(RuntimeVersion.java:71)
at scalapb.options.Scalapb.<clinit>(Scalapb.java:11)
... 22 more
java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1
at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27)
at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44)
at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96)
at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49)
at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39)
at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala)
ERROR: .../test/proto/BUILD:184:14
Building source jar test/proto/nested_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed:
(Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed:
error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command
(from target //test/proto:nested_proto)
bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ...
(remaining 2 arguments skipped) Pinning Protobuf to v28.3 using $ bazel build //src/... //test/... //third_party/... //scala_proto/...
ERROR: Skipping '//scala_proto/...':
error loading package under directory 'scala_proto':
error loading package 'scala_proto/private':
Internal error while loading Starlark builtins:
Failed to autoload external symbols:
cannot load '@@protobuf+//bazel/private:bazel_cc_proto_library.bzl':
no such file
ERROR: error loading package under directory 'scala_proto':
error loading package 'scala_proto/private':
Internal error while loading Starlark builtins:
Failed to autoload external symbols:
cannot load '@@protobuf+//bazel/private:bazel_cc_proto_library.bzl':
no such file
These aren't insurmountable issues; perhaps once Protobuf v29.0 lands, I can try again, and ScalaPB v1.0.0-alpha.1 will be happy with plain protobuf-java:4.29.0. Building with Bazel 8 will be blocked until then, even after Bzlmodification. However, building with Bazel 8 will require those new |
I spoke too soon: I can get a So it seems we could bump to Bazel 8 without abandoning Update: To confirm, I went back to Bazel 7.4.1 to build using the new $ bazel build //src/... //test/... //third_party/... //scala_proto/...
ERROR: Traceback (most recent call last):
File ".../external/remote_java_tools/BUILD", line 7, column 60, in <toplevel>
load("@rules_cc//cc:defs.bzl", "cc_binary", "cc_library", "cc_proto_library")
Error: file '@rules_cc//cc:defs.bzl' does not contain symbol 'cc_proto_library'
ERROR: .../external/remote_java_tools/BUILD:
no such target '@@remote_java_tools//:TurbineDirect':
target 'TurbineDirect' not declared in package ''
defined by .../external/remote_java_tools/BUILD
ERROR: .../test/toolchains/BUILD.bazel:10:23:
no such target '@@remote_java_tools//:TurbineDirect':
target 'TurbineDirect' not declared in package ''
defined by .../external/remote_java_tools/BUILD
and referenced by '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain'
ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed;
build aborted: Analysis failed |
These changes enable both `WORKSPACE` and Bzlmod builds to reach a point where both fail with the following errors. Part of bazelbuild#1652. - To use `WORKSPACE`, specify `--enable_workspace --noenable_bzlmod` on the command line or add them to `.bazelrc`. Per that issue, the following breakages may be resolved by a new `protobuf-java:4.29.0` release (without the `-RC3` suffix. Then we can try to run the rest of the `rules_scala` test suite. Also per that issue, adopting Bazel 8 and rules_java 8 compatibility will necessarily break Bazel 6 and 7 compatibility. --- Hoisted the `load_rules_dependencies()` macro into the new `//scala:deps.bzl` file to avoid copying everything into `WORKSPACE`. Changed the order of `http_archive()` calls as well. Without importing these repos in this order, the build would break under `WORKSPACE`. Without the `rules_java_dependencies()` and `protobuf_deps()` calls where they are, the build also breaks. --- Under both `WORKSPACE` and Bzlmod, the following build command will fail with a `mismatched Protobuf Gencode/Runtime version suffixes` error: ```txt $ bazel build //src/... //test/... //third_party/... //scala_proto/... ERROR: .../external/protobuf+/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:130:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/protobuf+/src/google/protobuf/wrappers_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@protobuf+//src/google/protobuf:wrappers_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError at scalapb.options.compiler.Scalapb$.registerAllExtensions(Scalapb.scala:8) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:53) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:217) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.scala:18) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:60) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:71) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:124) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.scala:18) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:687) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$Transformation.run(Promise.scala:467) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) Caused by: com.google.protobuf.RuntimeVersion$ProtobufRuntimeVersionException: Detected mismatched Protobuf Gencode/Runtime version suffixes when loading scalapb.options.Scalapb: gencode 4.28.2, runtime 4.29.0-rc3. Version suffixes must be the same. at com.google.protobuf.RuntimeVersion.validateProtobufGencodeVersionImpl(RuntimeVersion.java:126) at com.google.protobuf.RuntimeVersion.validateProtobufGencodeVersion(RuntimeVersion.java:71) at scalapb.options.Scalapb.<clinit>(Scalapb.java:11) ... 22 more java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/protobuf+/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:130:14 scala @@protobuf+//src/google/protobuf:wrappers_proto failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@protobuf+//src/google/protobuf:wrappers_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ``` Later builds then fail with `java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class scalapb.options.Scalapb`: ```txt $ bazel build //src/... //test/... //third_party/... //scala_proto/... ERROR: .../third_party/test/proto/BUILD.bazel:4:14: ProtoScalaPBRule third_party/test/proto/proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target //third_party/test/proto:proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class scalapb.options.Scalapb at scalapb.options.compiler.Scalapb$.registerAllExtensions(Scalapb.scala:8) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:53) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:217) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.scala:18) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:60) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:71) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:124) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.scala:18) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:687) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$Transformation.run(Promise.scala:467) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../third_party/test/proto/BUILD.bazel:4:14 Building source jar third_party/test/proto/proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target //third_party/test/proto:proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ```
I've created the Note that this branch/commit is based on my |
I believe the original issue in the description (#1652 (comment)) is because the Historically, this has only worked by accident, as the Starlark environment for The right fix would to partition the rules_scala bzl load graph into non-overlapping (cc @comius, @meteorcloudy) |
I think it's better to do the right thing here instead of implementing more hacks that would be remove anyway in future. |
As it turns out, this can't actually work (at least not easily), as
This seems doable and I might end up doing this for Bazel@HEAD, if only to turn our downstream CI green. However, (if it does happen) cherry-picking the fix to Bazel 8 will only occur if we end up needing a new RC for other reasons. |
Context: bazelbuild/rules_scala#1652 (comment) This will fix the issue in Bazel@HEAD, and the primary motivation is to turn downstream CI green. On the off-chance we are making a new Bazel 8 RC, we can include this. Otherwise, maybe this can go in 8.1.0 PiperOrigin-RevId: 701260369 Change-Id: If62eb015b5220b574ce34a26a194d2722021082f
Moves functions out of `//scala:scala.bzl` and updates `WORKSPACE` to load `//scala:toolchains.bzl` to avoid importing macros that depend on `JavaInfo` and `java_common` during `WORKSPACE` evaluation. Based on advice from @hvadehra in bazelbuild#1652. I haven't tried this under Bzlmod yet, and it still fails with the following error. This is due to bumping to Protobuf v29.0 and protobuf-java:4.29.0, and I believe I can update `ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala` to fix this. But the point is that I do _not_ have to `load()` files from `@rules_java` after all. ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ```
@hvadehra Thanks for the hint about partitioning the As noted in the commit message, I haven't tried it under Bzlmod yet. Update: Ah, I forgot to bump the ScalaPB version to 1.0.0-alpha.1. Once I did that, success! I can actually begin to land the Going to play with this some more in the coming days to see what I find out. @simuons and @liucijus Here's a heads-up that I may start sending pull requests related to these findings. |
Every Scala version now uses com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java:4.29.0. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652. This is necessary, but not sufficient, to make `rules_scala` Bazel 8 compatible by enabling an update to `protobuf` v29.0. Building with Bazel 6.5.0 and `protobuf` v21.7 continues to pass all tests after this change.
Ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. Part of bazelbuild#1652.
Ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. Part of bazelbuild#1652.
Ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. Part of bazelbuild#1652.
Ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. Part of bazelbuild#1652. Bumps several packages as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6 and 7: - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 - `rules_go`: 0.50.1 The following packages are at the maximum version to prevent breakages under Bazel 6.5.0. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v27.1, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue. --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` --- `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.10.0 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- `rules_java` remains at 7.9.0 due to the more complicated situation it presents. The current version that could be compatible with Bazel 6 and 7 is 7.12.2. As it turns out, we could include `rules_java` versions up to and including 7.12.2 if we don't call the following in `WORKSPACE`: ```py load("@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains") rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` In fact, __we don't do that today__. When we do, Bazel 7.4.1 builds successfully, but Bazel 6.5.2 fails with: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` When we bump to rules_java 7.10.0, which contains bazelbuild/rules_java#210, Bazel 7.4.1 fails with: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` This is the error I described in bazelbuild#1619, under "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. Today I rediscovered: - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with @@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 But even worse, Bazel 6.5.0 fails with: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.ReducedClasspathJavaLibraryBuilder.compileSources(ReducedClasspathJavaLibraryBuilder.java:57) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.compileJavaLibrary(SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.java:110) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.run(SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.java:118) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.BazelJavaBuilder.build(BazelJavaBuilder.java:111) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.BazelJavaBuilder.parseAndBuild(BazelJavaBuilder.java:91) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.BazelJavaBuilder.lambda$main$0(BazelJavaBuilder.java:52) at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkRequestHandler$WorkRequestCallback.apply(WorkRequestHandler.java:252) at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkRequestHandler.respondToRequest(WorkRequestHandler.java:480) at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkRequestHandler.lambda$startResponseThread$1(WorkRequestHandler.java:433) at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829) ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.ReducedClasspathJavaLibraryBuilder.compileSources(ReducedClasspathJavaLibraryBuilder.java:57) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.compileJavaLibrary(SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.java:110) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.run(SimpleJavaLibraryBuilder.java:118) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.BazelJavaBuilder.build(BazelJavaBuilder.java:111) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.BazelJavaBuilder.parseAndBuild(BazelJavaBuilder.java:91) at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.BazelJavaBuilder.lambda$main$0(BazelJavaBuilder.java:52) at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkRequestHandler$WorkRequestCallback.apply(WorkRequestHandler.java:252) at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkRequestHandler.respondToRequest(WorkRequestHandler.java:480) at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkRequestHandler.lambda$startResponseThread$1(WorkRequestHandler.java:433) at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829) ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` In bazelbuild#1619, I thought we wanted to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package, instead of `@rules_java//toolchains:`. But based on this comment from @fmeum, I'm inclined to believe switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach: - bazelbuild/rules_java#214 (comment) --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. We can't update to `rules_java` 8 right now, unless we decided to do the following: - Tell Bazel 6 users to add C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - Abandon Bazel 6 support in favor of supporting Bazel 7 at a minimum. - In addition to either of the above cases, update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` v28. Here are the details explaining why `rules_java` 8 currently breaks. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652. All dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` remain, however, as there is not yet a corresponding target in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza recommended in the `rules_java` release notes, and removes our own calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. These changes are required to avoid build breakages when updating to `rules_scala` 7.10.0 and higher. All targets build and all tests pass under Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. --- I was on the right track in my analysis from bazelbuild#1619 ("Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88). However, I thought we _shouldn't_ update any targets from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. However, this comment from @fmeum made me think switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred approach: - bazelbuild/rules_java#214 (comment) So this is a potentially breaking change, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, future proof update.
It's not just `rules_java` in the new preamble, but that's what's precipitating the change. This preamble also works under Bazel 8, per my investigation in bazelbuild#1652.
Removes this symbol from `scala/scala.bzl` as well as `setup_scala_testing_toolchain`, and deletes `scala/private/macros/toolchains.bzl`. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652. This is required for Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 compatibility, but is also compatible with Bazel 6 and 7. In bazelbuild#1652, @hvadehra suggested partitioning the `.bzl` files such that `WORKSPACE` doesn't `load` a file that tries to `load` symbols from `rules_java`. I successfully did so in a separate branch, and along with other minor changes, got `rules_scala` to build with `rules_java` 8.5.1. The other changes will come in separate pull requests, but it makes sense to land this change now before adding any other toolchains to `scala_toolchains`. --- Arguably, we should remove all macros exported from `scala/scala.bzl` that only instantiate toolchain dependencies and define toolchains. That may be a breaking change for some users, but will ultimately be necessary for these macros to remain compatible with Bazel 8.
Adds the jmh toolchain to `scala_toolchains()` and moves `jmh_repositories()` to `jmh/toolchain/toolchain.bzl` for `rules_java` 8 compatibility. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652.
This is the last of the toolchain to receive the "toolchainization" treatment prior to Bzlmodification, and moves `twitter_scrooge()` to `twitter_scrooge/toolchain/toolchain.bzl` for `rules_java` 8 compatibility. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652.
Adds the jmh toolchain to `scala_toolchains()` and moves `jmh_repositories()` to `jmh/toolchain/toolchain.bzl` for `rules_java` 8 compatibility. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652.
This is the last of the toolchain to receive the "toolchainization" treatment prior to Bzlmodification, and moves `twitter_scrooge()` to `twitter_scrooge/toolchain/toolchain.bzl` for `rules_java` 8 compatibility. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652.
This fixes CI builds because Bazel 8.0.0 just came out, but `rules_scala` is not yet Bazel 8 compatible, causing `latest Bazel` builds to fail. Part of bazelbuild#1625 and bazelbuild#1652. - https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk?tab=readme-ov-file#how-does-bazelisk-know-which-bazel-version-to-run
Moves `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` and bumps several dependencies as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `go`: 1.19.5 => 1.23.4 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_go`: 0.39.1 => 0.50.1 - `rules_java`: 7.9.0 => 7.12.3 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 The `rules_java` 7.12.13 bump precipitated the following changes: - Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` in every `WORKSPACE` file per https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/releases/tag/7.12.3. This replaces previous calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. - Rearranges the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies to come before the `rules_scala` setup macros. - Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. - Removes several deprecated flags from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case from `test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh`, and one obsolete flag that caused it to break. --- Moving `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. It also prevents `WORKSPACE` from transitively loading any `.bzl` files that load `@rules_java`, ensuring Bazel 8 compatibility per bazelbuild#1652. Reasons for the other `rules_java` related changes include: - The `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` should've already been present while using the existing version 7.9.0. However, doing so would've broken Bazel 6 builds, as described in detail below. - Having the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies come before the `rules_scala` setup macros helps ensure consistent, correct initialization before `rules_scala` initialization. - Updating the toolchain specifiers to use `@rules_java//toolchains` fixed `WORKSPACE` build breakages when updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 and later. This is a potentially breaking change for consumers, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, futureproof update. (`@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` dependencies remain, as there's not yet a corresponding `@rules_java//toolchains` target.) What follows are detailed notes on why some dependency versions are capped where they are, and on some breakages fixed by these changes. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v21.7, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue: ```txt build:linux --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:linux --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:windows --cxxopt=/std=c++17 build:windows --host_cxxopt=/std=c++17 ``` --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` However, `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.0.10 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- This section provides a methodical description of the errors encountered and resolved during each step of the `rules_java` update. The proper `WORKSPACE` setup stanza for `rules_java`, which we didn't originally have in place, is: ```py load( "@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains", ) rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` Adding this stanza to `WORKSPACE` while still using `rules_java` 7.9.0 didn't break the Bazel 7.4.1 build, but it broke the Bazel 6.5.0 build. Note the `CompiledWithJava{8,11}_java.jar` references: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` Another variation of this I also saw was: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,jmh,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ``` Updating the toolchains from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:` for targets in `test/BUILD` and `test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD` fixed this particular issue. (More on updating other `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk` toolchain targets below.) Bazel 6.5.0 then failed with the following expected issue, fixed by `rules_java` 7.10.0 via: - bazelbuild/rules_java#210 - bazelbuild/rules_java@30ecf3f ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` Updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 fixed the Bazel 6.5.0 build, but caused Bazel 7.4.1 to fail with the error I originally described in bazelbuild#1619. For details, see "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` My analysis from bazelbuild#1619 _was_ on the right track. The `rules_java` 7.9.0 built into Bazel's `WORKSPACE` preamble registered `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` toolchains that later versions of `rules_java` couldn't resolve. This was due to the very same change that fixed 6.5.0, bazelbuild/rules_java#210. However, I mistakenly thought we needed to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package instead switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I originally thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. I eventually rediscovered the following issue, which surfaced this problem a month before bazelbuild#1619. The conversation helped me realize that switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach (short of migrating to Bzlmod): - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with `@@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 Switching all `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchains to `@rules_java//toolchains:` resolved this issue, enabling Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1 to successfully build using `rules_java` 7.12.2. I then updated `rules_java` to 7.12.3, which returns to registering some toolchains as `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type`: - bazelbuild/rules_java#246 - bazelbuild/rules_java@b64eb7d @hvadehra requested that I try 7.12.3 to see if it resolved the issue. I was able to build successfully using this version in a branch without the toolchain updates from this commit. - bazelbuild#1652 (comment) However, the changes from this commit should remain futureproof when `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` moves to `@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` again one day. --- Several of the flags removed from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case have been no-ops for years, so removing them eliminated their corresponding deprecation warnings. `--javacopt='--release 11'`, however, caused this breakage after originally bumping to `rules_java` 7.12.2: ```txt $ RULES_SCALA_TEST_ONLY="scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" bash ./test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh running test scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11 WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated INFO: Analyzed 64 targets (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured). INFO: Found 64 targets... ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/BUILD:3:13: Compiling Java headers src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar (1 source file) failed: (Exit 1): turbine_direct_graal failed: error executing command (from target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions:compileoptions) external/remote_java_tools_darwin_arm64/java_tools/turbine_direct_graal --output bazel-out/darwin_arm64-fastbuild/bin/src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar ... (remaining 32 arguments skipped) Use --sandbox_debug to see verbose messages from the sandbox and retain the sandbox build root for debugging java.lang.NullPointerException: attempted to use --release, but JAVA_HOME is not set at [email protected]/java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:259) at com.google.turbine.binder.CtSymClassBinder.bind(CtSymClassBinder.java:55) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.release(Main.java:318) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.bootclasspath(Main.java:304) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:142) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:133) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.main(Main.java:89) at [email protected]/java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/sa346b79c.invokeStaticInit(LambdaForm$DMH) INFO: Elapsed time: 0.325s, Critical Path: 0.12s INFO: 11 processes: 10 internal, 1 worker. FAILED: Build did NOT complete successfully Test "scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" failed (0 sec) ``` See also: - Bazel Blog: Bazel 5.0: https://blog.bazel.build/2022/01/19/bazel-5.0.html#java - bazelbuild/bazel: `incompatible_use_toolchain_resolution_for_java_rules`: use toolchain resolution for Java rules #7849 bazelbuild/bazel#7849 --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. Updating to `rules_java` 8 will likely happen in a new major release _after_ a release containing the Bzlmod changes. This is because: - The Bzlmod changes alone will work with Bazel 6 without requiring that users update `protobuf` beyond version 21.7. - Bazel 8 requires `protobuf` >= 29.0. Bazel 6 users would have to add the afforementioned C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - `rules_scala` itself needs to update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` >= v28.0, but this ScalaPB version will _not_ support `protobuf` < v28.0. The idea is that the next major release of `rules_scala` will help users migrate to Bazel 7 and Bzlmod, in either order. Then the next major release after that will enable them to migrate to Bazel 8, with all the requisite dependency upgrades. (Technically it will still support `WORKSPACE`, but hopefully they'll make the jump to Bzlmod first.) See: - bazelbuild#1482 (comment) --- Here are the details explaining how `rules_java` 8 currently breaks `rules_scala`, up until the point that upgrading to `protobuf` >= v29.0 would fix it. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Moves functions out of `//scala:scala.bzl` and updates `WORKSPACE` to load `//scala:toolchains.bzl` to avoid importing macros that depend on `JavaInfo` and `java_common` during `WORKSPACE` evaluation. Based on advice from @hvadehra in bazelbuild#1652. Use `java_proto_library` from `com_google_protobuf`, since the version from `rules_java` is now officially deprecated. Also bumps `.bazelversion` to 7.4.1 in order to upgrade `abseil-cpp` to 20240722.0 and `protobuf` to v29.0. This is instead of keeping `.bazelversion` at 6.5.0 and setting C++ compiler flags in `.bazelrc` as described in bazelbuild#1647. This change fails with the following error. Bumping to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 in the next commit fixes this. ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ```
Fixes `{strict_deps,unused_dependency_checker}_test` from `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test` as mentioned in bazelbuild#1652.
Moves `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` and bumps several dependencies as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `go`: 1.19.5 => 1.23.4 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_go`: 0.39.1 => 0.50.1 - `rules_java`: 7.9.0 => 7.12.3 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 The `rules_java` 7.12.13 bump precipitated the following changes: - Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` in every `WORKSPACE` file per https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/releases/tag/7.12.3. This replaces previous calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. - Rearranges the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies to come before the `rules_scala` setup macros. - Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. - Removes several deprecated flags from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case from `test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh`, and one obsolete flag that caused it to break. --- Moving `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. It also prevents `WORKSPACE` from transitively loading any `.bzl` files that load `@rules_java`, ensuring Bazel 8 compatibility per bazelbuild#1652. Reasons for the other `rules_java` related changes include: - The `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` should've already been present while using the existing version 7.9.0. However, doing so would've broken Bazel 6 builds, as described in detail below. - Having the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies come before the `rules_scala` setup macros helps ensure consistent, correct initialization before `rules_scala` initialization. - Updating the toolchain specifiers to use `@rules_java//toolchains` fixed `WORKSPACE` build breakages when updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 and later. This is a potentially breaking change for consumers, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, futureproof update. (`@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` dependencies remain, as there's not yet a corresponding `@rules_java//toolchains` target.) What follows are detailed notes on why some dependency versions are capped where they are, and on some breakages fixed by these changes. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v21.7, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue: ```txt build:linux --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:linux --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:windows --cxxopt=/std=c++17 build:windows --host_cxxopt=/std=c++17 ``` --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` However, `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.0.10 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- This section provides a methodical description of the errors encountered and resolved during each step of the `rules_java` update. The proper `WORKSPACE` setup stanza for `rules_java`, which we didn't originally have in place, is: ```py load( "@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains", ) rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` Adding this stanza to `WORKSPACE` while still using `rules_java` 7.9.0 didn't break the Bazel 7.4.1 build, but it broke the Bazel 6.5.0 build. Note the `CompiledWithJava{8,11}_java.jar` references: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` Another variation of this I also saw was: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,jmh,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ``` Updating the toolchains from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:` for targets in `test/BUILD` and `test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD` fixed this particular issue. (More on updating other `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk` toolchain targets below.) Bazel 6.5.0 then failed with the following expected issue, fixed by `rules_java` 7.10.0 via: - bazelbuild/rules_java#210 - bazelbuild/rules_java@30ecf3f ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` Updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 fixed the Bazel 6.5.0 build, but caused Bazel 7.4.1 to fail with the error I originally described in bazelbuild#1619. For details, see "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` My analysis from bazelbuild#1619 _was_ on the right track. The `rules_java` 7.9.0 built into Bazel's `WORKSPACE` preamble registered `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` toolchains that later versions of `rules_java` couldn't resolve. This was due to the very same change that fixed 6.5.0, bazelbuild/rules_java#210. However, I mistakenly thought we needed to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package instead switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I originally thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. I eventually rediscovered the following issue, which surfaced this problem a month before bazelbuild#1619. The conversation helped me realize that switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach (short of migrating to Bzlmod): - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with `@@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 Switching all `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchains to `@rules_java//toolchains:` resolved this issue, enabling Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1 to successfully build using `rules_java` 7.12.2. I then updated `rules_java` to 7.12.3, which returns to registering some toolchains as `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type`: - bazelbuild/rules_java#246 - bazelbuild/rules_java@b64eb7d @hvadehra requested that I try 7.12.3 to see if it resolved the issue. I was able to build successfully using this version in a branch without the toolchain updates from this commit. - bazelbuild#1652 (comment) However, the changes from this commit should remain futureproof when `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` moves to `@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` again one day. --- Several of the flags removed from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case have been no-ops for years, so removing them eliminated their corresponding deprecation warnings. `--javacopt='--release 11'`, however, caused this breakage after originally bumping to `rules_java` 7.12.2: ```txt $ RULES_SCALA_TEST_ONLY="scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" bash ./test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh running test scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11 WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated INFO: Analyzed 64 targets (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured). INFO: Found 64 targets... ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/BUILD:3:13: Compiling Java headers src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar (1 source file) failed: (Exit 1): turbine_direct_graal failed: error executing command (from target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions:compileoptions) external/remote_java_tools_darwin_arm64/java_tools/turbine_direct_graal --output bazel-out/darwin_arm64-fastbuild/bin/src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar ... (remaining 32 arguments skipped) Use --sandbox_debug to see verbose messages from the sandbox and retain the sandbox build root for debugging java.lang.NullPointerException: attempted to use --release, but JAVA_HOME is not set at [email protected]/java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:259) at com.google.turbine.binder.CtSymClassBinder.bind(CtSymClassBinder.java:55) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.release(Main.java:318) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.bootclasspath(Main.java:304) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:142) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:133) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.main(Main.java:89) at [email protected]/java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/sa346b79c.invokeStaticInit(LambdaForm$DMH) INFO: Elapsed time: 0.325s, Critical Path: 0.12s INFO: 11 processes: 10 internal, 1 worker. FAILED: Build did NOT complete successfully Test "scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" failed (0 sec) ``` See also: - Bazel Blog: Bazel 5.0: https://blog.bazel.build/2022/01/19/bazel-5.0.html#java - bazelbuild/bazel: `incompatible_use_toolchain_resolution_for_java_rules`: use toolchain resolution for Java rules #7849 bazelbuild/bazel#7849 --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. Updating to `rules_java` 8 will likely happen in a new major release _after_ a release containing the Bzlmod changes. This is because: - The Bzlmod changes alone will work with Bazel 6 without requiring that users update `protobuf` beyond version 21.7. - Bazel 8 requires `protobuf` >= 29.0. Bazel 6 users would have to add the afforementioned C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - `rules_scala` itself needs to update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` >= v28.0, but this ScalaPB version will _not_ support `protobuf` < v28.0. The idea is that the next major release of `rules_scala` will help users migrate to Bazel 7 and Bzlmod, in either order. Then the next major release after that will enable them to migrate to Bazel 8, with all the requisite dependency upgrades. (Technically it will still support `WORKSPACE`, but hopefully they'll make the jump to Bzlmod first.) See: - bazelbuild#1482 (comment) --- Here are the details explaining how `rules_java` 8 currently breaks `rules_scala`, up until the point that upgrading to `protobuf` >= v29.0 would fix it. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Moves `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` and bumps several dependencies as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `go`: 1.19.5 => 1.23.4 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_go`: 0.39.1 => 0.50.1 - `rules_java`: 7.9.0 => 7.12.3 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 The `rules_java` 7.12.13 bump precipitated the following changes: - Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` in every `WORKSPACE` file per https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/releases/tag/7.12.3. This replaces previous calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. - Rearranges the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies to come before the `rules_scala` setup macros. - Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. - Removes several deprecated flags from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case from `test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh`, and one obsolete flag that caused it to break. --- Moving `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. It also prevents `WORKSPACE` from transitively loading any `.bzl` files that load `@rules_java`, ensuring Bazel 8 compatibility per bazelbuild#1652. Reasons for the other `rules_java` related changes include: - The `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` should've already been present while using the existing version 7.9.0. However, doing so would've broken Bazel 6 builds, as described in detail below. - Having the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies come before the `rules_scala` setup macros helps ensure consistent, correct initialization before `rules_scala` initialization. - Updating the toolchain specifiers to use `@rules_java//toolchains` fixed `WORKSPACE` build breakages when updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 and later. This is a potentially breaking change for consumers, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, futureproof update. (`@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` dependencies remain, as there's not yet a corresponding `@rules_java//toolchains` target.) What follows are detailed notes on why some dependency versions are capped where they are, and on some breakages fixed by these changes. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v21.7, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue: ```txt build:linux --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:linux --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:windows --cxxopt=/std=c++17 build:windows --host_cxxopt=/std=c++17 ``` --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` However, `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.0.10 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- This section provides a methodical description of the errors encountered and resolved during each step of the `rules_java` update. The proper `WORKSPACE` setup stanza for `rules_java`, which we didn't originally have in place, is: ```py load( "@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains", ) rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` Adding this stanza to `WORKSPACE` while still using `rules_java` 7.9.0 didn't break the Bazel 7.4.1 build, but it broke the Bazel 6.5.0 build. Note the `CompiledWithJava{8,11}_java.jar` references: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` Another variation of this I also saw was: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,jmh,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ``` Updating the toolchains from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:` for targets in `test/BUILD` and `test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD` fixed this particular issue. (More on updating other `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk` toolchain targets below.) Bazel 6.5.0 then failed with the following expected issue, fixed by `rules_java` 7.10.0 via: - bazelbuild/rules_java#210 - bazelbuild/rules_java@30ecf3f ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` Updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 fixed the Bazel 6.5.0 build, but caused Bazel 7.4.1 to fail with the error I originally described in bazelbuild#1619. For details, see "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` My analysis from bazelbuild#1619 _was_ on the right track. The `rules_java` 7.9.0 built into Bazel's `WORKSPACE` preamble registered `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` toolchains that later versions of `rules_java` couldn't resolve. This was due to the very same change that fixed 6.5.0, bazelbuild/rules_java#210. However, I mistakenly thought we needed to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package instead switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I originally thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. I eventually rediscovered the following issue, which surfaced this problem a month before bazelbuild#1619. The conversation helped me realize that switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach (short of migrating to Bzlmod): - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with `@@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 Switching all `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchains to `@rules_java//toolchains:` resolved this issue, enabling Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1 to successfully build using `rules_java` 7.12.2. I then updated `rules_java` to 7.12.3, which returns to registering some toolchains as `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type`: - bazelbuild/rules_java#246 - bazelbuild/rules_java@b64eb7d @hvadehra requested that I try 7.12.3 to see if it resolved the issue. I was able to build successfully using this version in a branch without the toolchain updates from this commit. - bazelbuild#1652 (comment) However, the changes from this commit should remain futureproof when `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` moves to `@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` again one day. --- Several of the flags removed from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case have been no-ops for years, so removing them eliminated their corresponding deprecation warnings. `--javacopt='--release 11'`, however, caused this breakage after originally bumping to `rules_java` 7.12.2: ```txt $ RULES_SCALA_TEST_ONLY="scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" bash ./test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh running test scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11 WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated INFO: Analyzed 64 targets (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured). INFO: Found 64 targets... ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/BUILD:3:13: Compiling Java headers src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar (1 source file) failed: (Exit 1): turbine_direct_graal failed: error executing command (from target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions:compileoptions) external/remote_java_tools_darwin_arm64/java_tools/turbine_direct_graal --output bazel-out/darwin_arm64-fastbuild/bin/src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar ... (remaining 32 arguments skipped) Use --sandbox_debug to see verbose messages from the sandbox and retain the sandbox build root for debugging java.lang.NullPointerException: attempted to use --release, but JAVA_HOME is not set at [email protected]/java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:259) at com.google.turbine.binder.CtSymClassBinder.bind(CtSymClassBinder.java:55) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.release(Main.java:318) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.bootclasspath(Main.java:304) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:142) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:133) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.main(Main.java:89) at [email protected]/java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/sa346b79c.invokeStaticInit(LambdaForm$DMH) INFO: Elapsed time: 0.325s, Critical Path: 0.12s INFO: 11 processes: 10 internal, 1 worker. FAILED: Build did NOT complete successfully Test "scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" failed (0 sec) ``` See also: - Bazel Blog: Bazel 5.0: https://blog.bazel.build/2022/01/19/bazel-5.0.html#java - bazelbuild/bazel: `incompatible_use_toolchain_resolution_for_java_rules`: use toolchain resolution for Java rules #7849 bazelbuild/bazel#7849 --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. Updating to `rules_java` 8 will likely happen in a new major release _after_ a release containing the Bzlmod changes. This is because: - The Bzlmod changes alone will work with Bazel 6 without requiring that users update `protobuf` beyond version 21.7. - Bazel 8 requires `protobuf` >= 29.0. Bazel 6 users would have to add the afforementioned C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - `rules_scala` itself needs to update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` >= v28.0, but this ScalaPB version will _not_ support `protobuf` < v28.0. The idea is that the next major release of `rules_scala` will help users migrate to Bazel 7 and Bzlmod, in either order. Then the next major release after that will enable them to migrate to Bazel 8, with all the requisite dependency upgrades. (Technically it will still support `WORKSPACE`, but hopefully they'll make the jump to Bzlmod first.) See: - bazelbuild#1482 (comment) --- Here are the details explaining how `rules_java` 8 currently breaks `rules_scala`, up until the point that upgrading to `protobuf` >= v29.0 would fix it. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Removes this symbol from `scala/scala.bzl` as well as `setup_scala_testing_toolchain`, and deletes `scala/private/macros/toolchains.bzl`. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652. This is required for Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 compatibility, but is also compatible with Bazel 6 and 7. In bazelbuild#1652, @hvadehra suggested partitioning the `.bzl` files such that `WORKSPACE` doesn't `load` a file that tries to `load` symbols from `rules_java`. I successfully did so in a separate branch, and along with other minor changes, got `rules_scala` to build with `rules_java` 8.5.1. The other changes will come in separate pull requests, but it makes sense to land this change now before adding any other toolchains to `scala_toolchains`. --- Arguably, we should remove all macros exported from `scala/scala.bzl` that only instantiate toolchain dependencies and define toolchains. That may be a breaking change for some users, but will ultimately be necessary for these macros to remain compatible with Bazel 8.
Adds the jmh toolchain to `scala_toolchains()` and moves `jmh_repositories()` to `jmh/toolchain/toolchain.bzl` for `rules_java` 8 compatibility. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652.
This is the last of the toolchain to receive the "toolchainization" treatment prior to Bzlmodification, and moves `twitter_scrooge()` to `twitter_scrooge/toolchain/toolchain.bzl` for `rules_java` 8 compatibility. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652.
Moves `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` and bumps several dependencies as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `go`: 1.19.5 => 1.23.4 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_go`: 0.39.1 => 0.50.1 - `rules_java`: 7.9.0 => 7.12.3 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 The `rules_java` 7.12.13 bump precipitated the following changes: - Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` in every `WORKSPACE` file per https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/releases/tag/7.12.3. This replaces previous calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. - Rearranges the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies to come before the `rules_scala` setup macros. - Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. - Removes several deprecated flags from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case from `test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh`, and one obsolete flag that caused it to break. --- Moving `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. It also prevents `WORKSPACE` from transitively loading any `.bzl` files that load `@rules_java`, ensuring Bazel 8 compatibility per bazelbuild#1652. Reasons for the other `rules_java` related changes include: - The `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` should've already been present while using the existing version 7.9.0. However, doing so would've broken Bazel 6 builds, as described in detail below. - The `rules_java_toolchains()` call follows the `protobuf_deps()` call instead of immediately following `rules_java_dependencies()` because upgrading to `rules_java` >= 8.5.0 will require this. It has no adverse impact to do it now, amidst the other `WORKSPACE` changes, and will make the eventual `rules_java` >= 8.5.0 diff smaller. - Having the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies come before the `rules_scala` setup macros helps ensure consistent, correct initialization before `rules_scala` initialization. - Updating the toolchain specifiers to use `@rules_java//toolchains` fixed `WORKSPACE` build breakages when updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 and later. This is a potentially breaking change for consumers, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, futureproof update. (`@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` dependencies remain, as there's not yet a corresponding `@rules_java//toolchains` target.) What follows are detailed notes on why some dependency versions are capped where they are, and on some breakages fixed by these changes. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v21.7, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue: ```txt build:linux --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:linux --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:windows --cxxopt=/std=c++17 build:windows --host_cxxopt=/std=c++17 ``` --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` However, `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.0.10 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- This section provides a methodical description of the errors encountered and resolved during each step of the `rules_java` update. The proper `WORKSPACE` setup stanza for `rules_java`, which we didn't originally have in place, is: ```py load( "@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains", ) rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` Adding this stanza to `WORKSPACE` while still using `rules_java` 7.9.0 didn't break the Bazel 7.4.1 build, but it broke the Bazel 6.5.0 build. Note the `CompiledWithJava{8,11}_java.jar` references: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` Another variation of this I also saw was: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,jmh,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ``` Updating the toolchains from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:` for targets in `test/BUILD` and `test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD` fixed this particular issue. (More on updating other `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk` toolchain targets below.) Bazel 6.5.0 then failed with the following expected issue, fixed by `rules_java` 7.10.0 via: - bazelbuild/rules_java#210 - bazelbuild/rules_java@30ecf3f ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` Updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 fixed the Bazel 6.5.0 build, but caused Bazel 7.4.1 to fail with the error I originally described in bazelbuild#1619. For details, see "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` My analysis from bazelbuild#1619 _was_ on the right track. The `rules_java` 7.9.0 built into Bazel's `WORKSPACE` preamble registered `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` toolchains that later versions of `rules_java` couldn't resolve. This was due to the very same change that fixed 6.5.0, bazelbuild/rules_java#210. However, I mistakenly thought we needed to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package instead switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I originally thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. I eventually rediscovered the following issue, which surfaced this problem a month before bazelbuild#1619. The conversation helped me realize that switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach (short of migrating to Bzlmod): - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with `@@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 Switching all `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchains to `@rules_java//toolchains:` resolved this issue, enabling Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1 to successfully build using `rules_java` 7.12.2. I then updated `rules_java` to 7.12.3, which returns to registering some toolchains as `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type`: - bazelbuild/rules_java#246 - bazelbuild/rules_java@b64eb7d @hvadehra requested that I try 7.12.3 to see if it resolved the issue. I was able to build successfully using this version in a branch without the toolchain updates from this commit. - bazelbuild#1652 (comment) However, the changes from this commit should remain futureproof when `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` moves to `@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` again one day. --- Several of the flags removed from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case have been no-ops for years, so removing them eliminated their corresponding deprecation warnings. `--javacopt='--release 11'`, however, caused this breakage after originally bumping to `rules_java` 7.12.2: ```txt $ RULES_SCALA_TEST_ONLY="scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" bash ./test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh running test scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11 WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated INFO: Analyzed 64 targets (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured). INFO: Found 64 targets... ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/BUILD:3:13: Compiling Java headers src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar (1 source file) failed: (Exit 1): turbine_direct_graal failed: error executing command (from target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions:compileoptions) external/remote_java_tools_darwin_arm64/java_tools/turbine_direct_graal --output bazel-out/darwin_arm64-fastbuild/bin/src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar ... (remaining 32 arguments skipped) Use --sandbox_debug to see verbose messages from the sandbox and retain the sandbox build root for debugging java.lang.NullPointerException: attempted to use --release, but JAVA_HOME is not set at [email protected]/java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:259) at com.google.turbine.binder.CtSymClassBinder.bind(CtSymClassBinder.java:55) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.release(Main.java:318) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.bootclasspath(Main.java:304) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:142) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:133) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.main(Main.java:89) at [email protected]/java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/sa346b79c.invokeStaticInit(LambdaForm$DMH) INFO: Elapsed time: 0.325s, Critical Path: 0.12s INFO: 11 processes: 10 internal, 1 worker. FAILED: Build did NOT complete successfully Test "scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" failed (0 sec) ``` See also: - Bazel Blog: Bazel 5.0: https://blog.bazel.build/2022/01/19/bazel-5.0.html#java - bazelbuild/bazel: `incompatible_use_toolchain_resolution_for_java_rules`: use toolchain resolution for Java rules #7849 bazelbuild/bazel#7849 --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. Updating to `rules_java` 8 will likely happen in a new major release _after_ a release containing the Bzlmod changes. This is because: - The Bzlmod changes alone will work with Bazel 6 without requiring that users update `protobuf` beyond version 21.7. - Bazel 8 requires `protobuf` >= 29.0. Bazel 6 users would have to add the afforementioned C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - `rules_scala` itself needs to update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` >= v28.0, but this ScalaPB version will _not_ support `protobuf` < v28.0. The idea is that the next major release of `rules_scala` will help users migrate to Bazel 7 and Bzlmod, in either order. Then the next major release after that will enable them to migrate to Bazel 8, with all the requisite dependency upgrades. (Technically it will still support `WORKSPACE`, but hopefully they'll make the jump to Bzlmod first.) See: - bazelbuild#1482 (comment) --- Here are the details explaining how `rules_java` 8 currently breaks `rules_scala`, up until the point that upgrading to `protobuf` >= v29.0 would fix it. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Moves `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` and bumps several dependencies as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `go`: 1.19.5 => 1.23.4 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_go`: 0.39.1 => 0.50.1 - `rules_java`: 7.9.0 => 7.12.3 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 The `rules_java` 7.12.13 bump precipitated the following changes: - Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` in every `WORKSPACE` file per https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/releases/tag/7.12.3. This replaces previous calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. - Rearranges the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies to come before the `rules_scala` setup macros. - Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. - Removes several deprecated flags from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case from `test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh`, and one obsolete flag that caused it to break. --- Moving `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. It also prevents `WORKSPACE` from transitively loading any `.bzl` files that load `@rules_java`, ensuring Bazel 8 compatibility per bazelbuild#1652. Reasons for the other `rules_java` related changes include: - The `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` should've already been present while using the existing version 7.9.0. However, doing so would've broken Bazel 6 builds, as described in detail below. - The `rules_java_toolchains()` call follows the `protobuf_deps()` call instead of immediately following `rules_java_dependencies()` because upgrading to `rules_java` >= 8.5.0 will require this. It has no adverse impact to do it now, amidst the other `WORKSPACE` changes, and will make the eventual `rules_java` >= 8.5.0 diff smaller. - Having the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies come before the `rules_scala` setup macros helps ensure consistent, correct initialization before `rules_scala` initialization. - Updating the toolchain specifiers to use `@rules_java//toolchains` fixed `WORKSPACE` build breakages when updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 and later. This is a potentially breaking change for consumers, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, futureproof update. (`@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` dependencies remain, as there's not yet a corresponding `@rules_java//toolchains` target.) What follows are detailed notes on why some dependency versions are capped where they are, and on some breakages fixed by these changes. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v21.7, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue: ```txt build:linux --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:linux --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:windows --cxxopt=/std=c++17 build:windows --host_cxxopt=/std=c++17 ``` --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` However, `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.0.10 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- This section provides a methodical description of the errors encountered and resolved during each step of the `rules_java` update. The proper `WORKSPACE` setup stanza for `rules_java`, which we didn't originally have in place, is: ```py load( "@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains", ) rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` Adding this stanza to `WORKSPACE` while still using `rules_java` 7.9.0 didn't break the Bazel 7.4.1 build, but it broke the Bazel 6.5.0 build. Note the `CompiledWithJava{8,11}_java.jar` references: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` Another variation of this I also saw was: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,jmh,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ``` Updating the toolchains from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:` for targets in `test/BUILD` and `test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD` fixed this particular issue. (More on updating other `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk` toolchain targets below.) Bazel 6.5.0 then failed with the following expected issue, fixed by `rules_java` 7.10.0 via: - bazelbuild/rules_java#210 - bazelbuild/rules_java@30ecf3f ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` Updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 fixed the Bazel 6.5.0 build, but caused Bazel 7.4.1 to fail with the error I originally described in bazelbuild#1619. For details, see "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` My analysis from bazelbuild#1619 _was_ on the right track. The `rules_java` 7.9.0 built into Bazel's `WORKSPACE` preamble registered `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` toolchains that later versions of `rules_java` couldn't resolve. This was due to the very same change that fixed 6.5.0, bazelbuild/rules_java#210. However, I mistakenly thought we needed to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package instead switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I originally thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. I eventually rediscovered the following issue, which surfaced this problem a month before bazelbuild#1619. The conversation helped me realize that switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach (short of migrating to Bzlmod): - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with `@@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 Switching all `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchains to `@rules_java//toolchains:` resolved this issue, enabling Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1 to successfully build using `rules_java` 7.12.2. I then updated `rules_java` to 7.12.3, which returns to registering some toolchains as `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type`: - bazelbuild/rules_java#246 - bazelbuild/rules_java@b64eb7d @hvadehra requested that I try 7.12.3 to see if it resolved the issue. I was able to build successfully using this version in a branch without the toolchain updates from this commit. - bazelbuild#1652 (comment) However, the changes from this commit should remain futureproof when `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` moves to `@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` again one day. --- Several of the flags removed from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case have been no-ops for years, so removing them eliminated their corresponding deprecation warnings. `--javacopt='--release 11'`, however, caused this breakage after originally bumping to `rules_java` 7.12.2: ```txt $ RULES_SCALA_TEST_ONLY="scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" bash ./test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh running test scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11 WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated INFO: Analyzed 64 targets (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured). INFO: Found 64 targets... ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/BUILD:3:13: Compiling Java headers src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar (1 source file) failed: (Exit 1): turbine_direct_graal failed: error executing command (from target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions:compileoptions) external/remote_java_tools_darwin_arm64/java_tools/turbine_direct_graal --output bazel-out/darwin_arm64-fastbuild/bin/src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar ... (remaining 32 arguments skipped) Use --sandbox_debug to see verbose messages from the sandbox and retain the sandbox build root for debugging java.lang.NullPointerException: attempted to use --release, but JAVA_HOME is not set at [email protected]/java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:259) at com.google.turbine.binder.CtSymClassBinder.bind(CtSymClassBinder.java:55) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.release(Main.java:318) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.bootclasspath(Main.java:304) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:142) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:133) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.main(Main.java:89) at [email protected]/java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/sa346b79c.invokeStaticInit(LambdaForm$DMH) INFO: Elapsed time: 0.325s, Critical Path: 0.12s INFO: 11 processes: 10 internal, 1 worker. FAILED: Build did NOT complete successfully Test "scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" failed (0 sec) ``` See also: - Bazel Blog: Bazel 5.0: https://blog.bazel.build/2022/01/19/bazel-5.0.html#java - bazelbuild/bazel: `incompatible_use_toolchain_resolution_for_java_rules`: use toolchain resolution for Java rules #7849 bazelbuild/bazel#7849 --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. Updating to `rules_java` 8 will likely happen in a new major release _after_ a release containing the Bzlmod changes. This is because: - The Bzlmod changes alone will work with Bazel 6 without requiring that users update `protobuf` beyond version 21.7. - Bazel 8 requires `protobuf` >= 29.0. Bazel 6 users would have to add the afforementioned C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - `rules_scala` itself needs to update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` >= v28.0, but this ScalaPB version will _not_ support `protobuf` < v28.0. The idea is that the next major release of `rules_scala` will help users migrate to Bazel 7 and Bzlmod, in either order. Then the next major release after that will enable them to migrate to Bazel 8, with all the requisite dependency upgrades. (Technically it will still support `WORKSPACE`, but hopefully they'll make the jump to Bzlmod first.) See: - bazelbuild#1482 (comment) --- Here are the details explaining how `rules_java` 8 currently breaks `rules_scala`, up until the point that upgrading to `protobuf` >= v29.0 would fix it. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Bumps dependencies to versions that are compatible with both Bazel 7.4.1 and 8.0.0. Part of bazelbuild#1652. - `rules_python`: 0.38.0 => 0.40.0 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.9 => 0.1.0 - `abseil-cpp`: 20220623.1 => 20240722.0 - `rules_java`: 7.12.3 => 8.5.1 - `protobuf`: 21.7 => 29.0 - `rules_proto`: 6.0.2 => 7.0.2 This precipitated the following updates also included in this commit: - Loads `java_proto_library` from `com_google_protobuf`. - Calls `java_repository()` after `protobuf_deps()` in `WORKSPACE`. - Bumps `.bazelversion` to 7.4.1. - Sets `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}`. This change by itself fails with the following error. Bumping to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 in the next commit fixes this. ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ``` Here's why the other changes were necessary in light of the version bumps: - `java_proto_library` from `rules_java` is now officially deprecated, hence loading it from `com_google_protobuf`. - The `rules_java` release notes suggest either loading `proto_bazel_features` from `@com_google_protobuf` or just calling `protobuf_deps()`. The key point is that the project must instantiate the `@proto_bazel_features` repo _before_ calling `rules_java_toolchains`. Hence, we've moved the `rules_java_toolchains()` call to follow `protobuf_deps()`. - We're using Bazel 7.4.1 in order to upgrade `abseil-cpp` to 20240722.0 and `protobuf` to v29.0. This is instead of keeping `.bazelversion` at 6.5.0 and setting C++ compiler flags in `.bazelrc` as described in bazelbuild#1647. - Setting `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}` fixes `test_semanticdb_handles_removed_sourcefiles`. This test relies on `bazel query`, which is also affected by these flags, hence `common` instead of `build`. Bazel 8 defaults to `--enable_bzlmod --noenable_workspace`, causing the `WORKSPACE` run of this test to fail.
Fixes `{strict_deps,unused_dependency_checker}_test` from `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test` by updating `$(location)` to `$(rootpath)`. Part of bazelbuild#1652. `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:strict_deps_test` and `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:unused_dependency_checker_test` both failed with errors of the form: ```txt StrictDepsTest: - error on indirect dependency target *** FAILED *** (379 milliseconds) nice errors on sequence of strings.this.infos.exists(nice errors on sequence of strings.this.checkErrorContainsMessage(target)) was false expected an error on //commons:Target to appear in errors (with buildozer command)! Errors: List(object apache is not a member of package org) (StrictDepsTest.scala:85) ``` This happened both under `WORKSPACE` and Bzlmod. These targets both depend on `@org_apache_commons_commons_lang_3_5_without_file//:linkable_org_apache_commons_commons_lang_3_5_without_file`. The `@org_apache_commons_commons_lang_3_5_without_file` repo is now instantiated by `dev_deps_repositories()` from `scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl`. These tests pass on Bazel 6 and 7. I added code to the "error on indirect dependency target" test case from `third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test/io/bazel/rulesscala/ dependencyanalyzer/StrictDepsTest.scala` to see the result of `compileWithDependencyAnalyzer()`: ```diff diff --git a/third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test/io/bazel/rulesscala/dependencyanalyzer/StrictDepsTest.scala b/third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test/io/bazel/rulesscala/dependencyanalyzer/StrictDepsTest.scala index b26ba5e5..76b19e90 100644 --- a/third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test/io/bazel/rulesscala/dependencyanalyzer/StrictDepsTest.scala +++ b/third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test/io/bazel/rulesscala/dependencyanalyzer/StrictDepsTest.scala @@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ class StrictDepsTest extends AnyFunSuite { val commonsTarget = "//commons:Target" val indirect = List(apacheCommonsClasspath -> commonsTarget) - compileWithDependencyAnalyzer(testCode, withIndirect = indirect).expectErrorOn(commonsTarget) + val errors = compileWithDependencyAnalyzer(testCode, withIndirect = indirect) + System.out.println(errors) + errors.expectErrorOn(commonsTarget) } test("error on multiple indirect dependency targets") { ``` Under Bazel 7.4.1, the test passed and shows this output: ```txt $ bazel test --test_output=streamed \ //third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:strict_deps_test [ ...snip... ] StrictDepsTest: List(Target '//commons:Target' is used but isn't explicitly declared, please add it to the deps. You can use the following buildozer command: buildozer 'add deps //commons:Target' //...) ``` Under Bazel 8.0.0rc6, it failed and showed this: ```txt $ bazel test --test_output=streamed \ //third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:strict_deps_test [ ...snip... ] StrictDepsTest: List(object apache is not a member of package org) ```
Part of bazelbuild#1652. - Bazel: 8.0.0rc7 => 8.0.0 - `rules_java`: 8.6.1 => 8.6.2 - `rules_python`: 0.40.0 => 1.0.0
Fixes `{strict_deps,unused_dependency_checker}_test` from `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test` under Bazel 8 by updating `$(location)` to `$(rootpath)`. Part of bazelbuild#1652. `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:strict_deps_test` and `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:unused_dependency_checker_test` both failed with errors of the form: ```txt StrictDepsTest: - error on indirect dependency target *** FAILED *** (379 milliseconds) nice errors on sequence of strings.this.infos.exists(nice errors on sequence of strings.this.checkErrorContainsMessage(target)) was false expected an error on //commons:Target to appear in errors (with buildozer command)! Errors: List(object apache is not a member of package org) (StrictDepsTest.scala:85) ``` This happened both under `WORKSPACE` and Bzlmod.
Bumps dependencies to versions that are compatible with both Bazel 7.4.1 and 8.0.0. Part of bazelbuild#1652. - ScalaPB jars: 0.11.17 => 1.0.0-alpha.1 - `rules_python`: 0.38.0 => 1.0.0 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.9 => 0.1.0 - `abseil-cpp`: 20220623.1 => 20240722.0 - `rules_java`: 7.12.3 => 8.6.2 - `protobuf`: 21.7 => 29.1 - `rules_proto`: 6.0.2 => 7.0.2 This precipitated the following updates also included in this commit: - Loads `java_proto_library` from `com_google_protobuf`. - Calls `java_repository()` after `protobuf_deps()` in `WORKSPACE`. - Bumps `.bazelversion` to 7.4.1. - Sets `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}`. - Adds `allow_empty = True` to a `glob` expression in `//test/semanticdb:lib_with_tempsrc`. - Removes Scala 2.11 test cases. With this change: - `WORKSPACE` builds succeed under Bazel 6.5.0, 7.4.1, and 8.0.0. - Bzlmod builds succeed under Bazel 7.4.1 under 8.0.0. Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 require `protobuf` >= v29. Bazel 6 Bzlmod builds aren't supported because it doesn't provide `use_repo_rule`, which is required by `rules_jvm_external` 6.3, which is required by `protobuf` v29. After the `protobuf` v29 bump, and before the ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 bump, `scala_proto` targets would fail with the following error: ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ``` Here's why the other changes were necessary in light of the version bumps: - `java_proto_library` from `rules_java` is now officially deprecated, hence loading it from `com_google_protobuf`. - The `rules_java` release notes suggest either loading `proto_bazel_features` from `@com_google_protobuf` or just calling `protobuf_deps()`. The key point is that the project must instantiate the `@proto_bazel_features` repo _before_ calling `rules_java_toolchains`. Hence, we've moved the `rules_java_toolchains()` call to follow `protobuf_deps()`. - We're using Bazel 7.4.1 in order to upgrade `abseil-cpp` to 20240722.0 and `protobuf` to v29.0. This is instead of keeping `.bazelversion` at 6.5.0 and setting C++ compiler flags in `.bazelrc` as described in bazelbuild#1647. - Setting `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}` fixes `test_semanticdb_handles_removed_sourcefiles`. This test relies on `bazel query`, which is also affected by these flags, hence `common` instead of `build`. Bazel 8 defaults to `--enable_bzlmod --noenable_workspace`, causing the `WORKSPACE` run of this test to fail. - `glob` requires an explicit `allow_empty = True` parameter now that `--incompatible_disallow_empty_glob` defaults to `True` in Bazel 8. - ScalaPB 0.9.8, the last version compatible with Scala 2.11, does not support `protobuf` >= 26.0. For this reason, we must remove the Scala 2.11 test cases. We should probably drop Scala 2.11 support at this point, since there's no ScalaPB release that supports `protobuf` > v25.5. Or perhaps we can at least document that `scala_proto` or any rules otherwise depending on `protobuf` are no longer supported out of the box. Such users will have to ensure they register their own downgraded versions: - `protobuf` <= v25.5 - `abseil-cpp` <= 20220623.1 - `rules_java` <= 7.12.2 - `rules_cc` <= 0.0.9
Bumps dependencies to versions that are compatible with both Bazel 7.4.1 and 8.0.0. Part of bazelbuild#1652. - ScalaPB jars: 0.11.17 => 1.0.0-alpha.1 - `rules_python`: 0.38.0 => 1.0.0 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.9 => 0.1.0 - `abseil-cpp`: 20220623.1 => 20240722.0 - `rules_java`: 7.12.3 => 8.6.2 - `protobuf`: 21.7 => 29.1 - `rules_proto`: 6.0.2 => 7.0.2 This precipitated the following updates also included in this commit: - Loads `java_proto_library` from `com_google_protobuf`. - Calls `java_repository()` after `protobuf_deps()` in `WORKSPACE`. - Bumps `.bazelversion` to 7.4.1. - Sets `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}`. - Adds `allow_empty = True` to a `glob` expression in `//test/semanticdb:lib_with_tempsrc`. - Removes Scala 2.11 test cases. With this change: - `WORKSPACE` builds succeed under Bazel 6.5.0, 7.4.1, and 8.0.0. - Bzlmod builds succeed under Bazel 7.4.1 under 8.0.0. Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 require `protobuf` >= v29. Bazel 6 Bzlmod builds aren't supported because it doesn't provide `use_repo_rule`, which is required by `rules_jvm_external` 6.3, which is required by `protobuf` v29. After the `protobuf` v29 bump, and before the ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 bump, `scala_proto` targets would fail with the following error: ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ``` Here's why the other changes were necessary in light of the version bumps: - `java_proto_library` from `rules_java` is now officially deprecated, hence loading it from `com_google_protobuf`. - The `rules_java` release notes suggest either loading `proto_bazel_features` from `@com_google_protobuf` or just calling `protobuf_deps()`. The key point is that the project must instantiate the `@proto_bazel_features` repo _before_ calling `rules_java_toolchains`. Hence, we've moved the `rules_java_toolchains()` call to follow `protobuf_deps()`. - We're using Bazel 7.4.1 in order to upgrade `abseil-cpp` to 20240722.0 and `protobuf` to v29.0. This is instead of keeping `.bazelversion` at 6.5.0 and setting C++ compiler flags in `.bazelrc` as described in bazelbuild#1647. - Setting `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}` fixes `test_semanticdb_handles_removed_sourcefiles`. This test relies on `bazel query`, which is also affected by these flags, hence `common` instead of `build`. Bazel 8 defaults to `--enable_bzlmod --noenable_workspace`, causing the `WORKSPACE` run of this test to fail. - `glob` requires an explicit `allow_empty = True` parameter now that `--incompatible_disallow_empty_glob` defaults to `True` in Bazel 8. - ScalaPB 0.9.8, the last version compatible with Scala 2.11, does not support `protobuf` >= 26.0. For this reason, we must remove the Scala 2.11 test cases. We should probably drop Scala 2.11 support at this point, since there's no ScalaPB release that supports `protobuf` > v25.5. Or perhaps we can at least document that `scala_proto` or any rules otherwise depending on `protobuf` are no longer supported out of the box. Such users will have to ensure they register their own downgraded versions: - `protobuf` <= v25.5 - `abseil-cpp` <= 20220623.1 - `rules_java` <= 7.12.2 - `rules_cc` <= 0.0.9
Fixes `{strict_deps,unused_dependency_checker}_test` from `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test` under Bazel 8 by updating `$(location)` to `$(rootpath)`. Part of bazelbuild#1652. `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:strict_deps_test` and `//third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test:unused_dependency_checker_test` both failed with errors of the form: ```txt StrictDepsTest: - error on indirect dependency target *** FAILED *** (379 milliseconds) nice errors on sequence of strings.this.infos.exists(nice errors on sequence of strings.this.checkErrorContainsMessage(target)) was false expected an error on //commons:Target to appear in errors (with buildozer command)! Errors: List(object apache is not a member of package org) (StrictDepsTest.scala:85) ``` This happened both under `WORKSPACE` and Bzlmod. Copying the test script with the following (with `$ID` being one of `7`, `8`, `7-updated`, or `8-updated`) helped reveal the differences: ```txt cp bazel-bin/third_party/dependency_analyzer/src/test/strict_deps_test \ strict_deps_test-$ID.sh ``` Under Bazel 7, we find the following lines whether using `$(location)` or `$(rootpath)` on the `org.apache.commons` artifact (the other artifacts already use `$(rootpath)`: ```txt -Dscala.library.location=external/io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_library_2_12_20/scala-library-2.12.20.jar -Dscala.reflect.location=external/io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_reflect_2_12_20/scala-reflect-2.12.20.jar -Dguava.jar.location=external/com_google_guava_guava_21_0_with_file/guava-21.0.jar -Dapache.commons.jar.location=external/org_apache_commons_commons_lang_3_5_without_file/commons-lang3-3.5.jar ``` Under Bazel 8, notice that the `external/` prefix has become `../` for the other paths already using `$(rootpath)`, but remains `external/` for the `$(location)` artifact. This breaks the Bazel 8 build: ```txt -Dscala.library.location=../io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_library_2_12_20/scala-library-2.12.20.jar -Dscala.reflect.location=../io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_reflect_2_12_20/scala-reflect-2.12.20.jar -Dguava.jar.location=../com_google_guava_guava_21_0_with_file/guava-21.0.jar -Dapache.commons.jar.location=external/org_apache_commons_commons_lang_3_5_without_file/commons-lang3-3.5.jar ``` Under Bazel 8, using `$(rootpath)` for the `org.apache.commons` artifact converts its `external/`, fixing the Bazel 8 build: ```txt -Dscala.library.location=../io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_library_2_12_20/scala-library-2.12.20.jar -Dscala.reflect.location=../io_bazel_rules_scala_scala_reflect_2_12_20/scala-reflect-2.12.20.jar -Dguava.jar.location=../com_google_guava_guava_21_0_with_file/guava-21.0.jar -Dapache.commons.jar.location=../org_apache_commons_commons_lang_3_5_without_file/commons-lang3-3.5.jar ```
Bumps dependencies to versions that are compatible with both Bazel 7.4.1 and 8.0.0. Part of bazelbuild#1652. - ScalaPB jars: 0.11.17 => 1.0.0-alpha.1 - `rules_python`: 0.38.0 => 1.0.0 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.9 => 0.1.0 - `abseil-cpp`: 20220623.1 => 20240722.0 - `rules_java`: 7.12.3 => 8.6.2 - `protobuf`: 21.7 => 29.1 - `rules_proto`: 6.0.2 => 7.0.2 This precipitated the following updates also included in this commit: - Loads `java_proto_library` from `com_google_protobuf`. - Calls `java_repository()` after `protobuf_deps()` in `WORKSPACE`. - Bumps `.bazelversion` to 7.4.1. - Sets `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}`. - Adds `allow_empty = True` to a `glob` expression in `//test/semanticdb:lib_with_tempsrc`. - Removes Scala 2.11 test cases. With this change: - `WORKSPACE` builds succeed under Bazel 6.5.0, 7.4.1, and 8.0.0. - Bzlmod builds succeed under Bazel 7.4.1 under 8.0.0. Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 require `protobuf` >= v29. Bazel 6 Bzlmod builds aren't supported because it doesn't provide `use_repo_rule`, which is required by `rules_jvm_external` 6.3, which is required by `protobuf` v29. After the `protobuf` v29 bump, and before the ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 bump, `scala_proto` targets would fail with the following error: ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ``` Here's why the other changes were necessary in light of the version bumps: - `java_proto_library` from `rules_java` is now officially deprecated, hence loading it from `com_google_protobuf`. - The `rules_java` release notes suggest either loading `proto_bazel_features` from `@com_google_protobuf` or just calling `protobuf_deps()`. The key point is that the project must instantiate the `@proto_bazel_features` repo _before_ calling `rules_java_toolchains`. Hence, we've moved the `rules_java_toolchains()` call to follow `protobuf_deps()`. - We're using Bazel 7.4.1 in order to upgrade `abseil-cpp` to 20240722.0 and `protobuf` to v29.0. This is instead of keeping `.bazelversion` at 6.5.0 and setting C++ compiler flags in `.bazelrc` as described in bazelbuild#1647. - Setting `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}` fixes `test_semanticdb_handles_removed_sourcefiles`. This test relies on `bazel query`, which is also affected by these flags, hence `common` instead of `build`. Bazel 8 defaults to `--enable_bzlmod --noenable_workspace`, causing the `WORKSPACE` run of this test to fail. - `glob` requires an explicit `allow_empty = True` parameter now that `--incompatible_disallow_empty_glob` defaults to `True` in Bazel 8. - ScalaPB 0.9.8, the last version compatible with Scala 2.11, does not support `protobuf` >= 26.0. For this reason, we must remove the Scala 2.11 test cases. We should probably drop Scala 2.11 support at this point, since there's no ScalaPB release that supports `protobuf` > v25.5. Or perhaps we can at least document that `scala_proto` or any rules otherwise depending on `protobuf` are no longer supported out of the box. Such users will have to ensure they register their own downgraded versions: - `protobuf` <= v25.5 - `abseil-cpp` <= 20220623.1 - `rules_java` <= 7.12.2 - `rules_cc` <= 0.0.9
Bumps dependencies to versions that are compatible with both Bazel 7.4.1 and 8.0.0. Part of bazelbuild#1652. - ScalaPB jars: 0.11.17 => 1.0.0-alpha.1 - `rules_python`: 0.38.0 => 1.0.0 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.9 => 0.1.0 - `abseil-cpp`: 20220623.1 => 20240722.0 - `rules_java`: 7.12.3 => 8.6.2 - `protobuf`: 21.7 => 29.1 - `rules_proto`: 6.0.2 => 7.0.2 This precipitated the following updates also included in this commit: - Loads `java_proto_library` from `com_google_protobuf`. - Calls `java_repository()` after `protobuf_deps()` in `WORKSPACE`. - Bumps `.bazelversion` to 7.4.1. - Sets `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}`. - Adds `allow_empty = True` to a `glob` expression in `//test/semanticdb:lib_with_tempsrc`. - Removes Scala 2.11 test cases. With this change: - `WORKSPACE` builds succeed under Bazel 6.5.0, 7.4.1, and 8.0.0. - Bzlmod builds succeed under Bazel 7.4.1 under 8.0.0. Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 require `protobuf` >= v29. Bazel 6 Bzlmod builds aren't supported because it doesn't provide `use_repo_rule`, which is required by `rules_jvm_external` 6.3, which is required by `protobuf` v29. After the `protobuf` v29 bump, and before the ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 bump, `scala_proto` targets would fail with the following error: ```txt ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14: ProtoScalaPBRule external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_scalapb.srcjar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/.../bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) --jvm_extra_protobuf_generator_out: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Object com.google.protobuf.DescriptorProtos$FieldOptions.getExtension(com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessage$GeneratedExtension)' at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.fieldOptions(DescriptorImplicits.scala:329) at scalapb.compiler.DescriptorImplicits$ExtendedFieldDescriptor.scalaName(DescriptorImplicits.scala:207) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateField(ProtoValidation.scala:121) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateMessage$3$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateMessage(ProtoValidation.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFile$2$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.Iterator.foreach$(Iterator.scala:943) at scala.collection.AbstractIterator.foreach(Iterator.scala:1431) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach(IterableLike.scala:74) at scala.collection.IterableLike.foreach$(IterableLike.scala:73) at scala.collection.AbstractIterable.foreach(Iterable.scala:56) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFile(ProtoValidation.scala:17) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.$anonfun$validateFiles$1$adapted(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scala.collection.immutable.Stream.foreach(Stream.scala:533) at scalapb.compiler.ProtoValidation.validateFiles(ProtoValidation.scala:10) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.handleCodeGeneratorRequest(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:86) at scalarules.test.extra_protobuf_generator.ExtraProtobufGenerator$.run(ExtraProtobufGenerator.scala:55) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.$anonfun$runWithBytes$1(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:213) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithBytes(PluginFrontend.scala:51) at protocbridge.frontend.PluginFrontend$.runWithInputStream(PluginFrontend.scala:121) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$2(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:40) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1$$anon$2.block(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:75) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3118) at scala.concurrent.impl.ExecutionContextImpl$DefaultThreadFactory$$anon$1.blockOn(ExecutionContextImpl.scala:87) at scala.concurrent.package$.blocking(package.scala:146) at protocbridge.frontend.PosixPluginFrontend$.$anonfun$prepare$1(PosixPluginFrontend.scala:38) at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcV$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcV$sp.java:23) at scala.concurrent.Future$.$anonfun$apply$1(Future.scala:659) at scala.util.Success.$anonfun$map$1(Try.scala:255) at scala.util.Success.map(Try.scala:213) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$map$1(Future.scala:292) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:42) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:74) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:183) java.lang.RuntimeException: Exit with code 1 at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:30) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.work(ScalaPBWorker.scala:44) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.persistentWorkerMain(Worker.java:96) at io.bazel.rulesscala.worker.Worker.workerMain(Worker.java:49) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker$.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala:39) at scripts.ScalaPBWorker.main(ScalaPBWorker.scala) ERROR: .../external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/BUILD.bazel:23:14 Building source jar external/com_google_protobuf/src/google/protobuf/any_proto_scalapb-src.jar failed: (Exit 1): scalapb_worker failed: error executing ProtoScalaPBRule command (from target @@com_google_protobuf//src/google/protobuf:any_proto) bazel-out/darwin_arm64-opt-exec-ST-a828a81199fe/bin/src/scala/scripts/scalapb_worker ... (remaining 2 arguments skipped) ``` Here's why the other changes were necessary in light of the version bumps: - `java_proto_library` from `rules_java` is now officially deprecated, hence loading it from `com_google_protobuf`. - The `rules_java` release notes suggest either loading `proto_bazel_features` from `@com_google_protobuf` or just calling `protobuf_deps()`. The key point is that the project must instantiate the `@proto_bazel_features` repo _before_ calling `rules_java_toolchains`. Hence, we've moved the `rules_java_toolchains()` call to follow `protobuf_deps()`. - We're using Bazel 7.4.1 in order to upgrade `abseil-cpp` to 20240722.0 and `protobuf` to v29.0. This is instead of keeping `.bazelversion` at 6.5.0 and setting C++ compiler flags in `.bazelrc` as described in bazelbuild#1647. - Setting `common --{,no}enable_{workspace,bzlmod}` fixes `test_semanticdb_handles_removed_sourcefiles`. This test relies on `bazel query`, which is also affected by these flags, hence `common` instead of `build`. Bazel 8 defaults to `--enable_bzlmod --noenable_workspace`, causing the `WORKSPACE` run of this test to fail. - `glob` requires an explicit `allow_empty = True` parameter now that `--incompatible_disallow_empty_glob` defaults to `True` in Bazel 8. - ScalaPB 0.9.8, the last version compatible with Scala 2.11, does not support `protobuf` >= 26.0. For this reason, we must remove the Scala 2.11 test cases. We should probably drop Scala 2.11 support at this point, since there's no ScalaPB release that supports `protobuf` > v25.5. Or perhaps we can at least document that `scala_proto` or any rules otherwise depending on `protobuf` are no longer supported out of the box. Such users will have to ensure they register their own downgraded versions: - `protobuf` <= v25.5 - `abseil-cpp` <= 20220623.1 - `rules_java` <= 7.12.2 - `rules_cc` <= 0.0.9
I've included some Bazel 8 updates in my Bzlmodification weekly update. Short story: I've got everything building with Bazel 8.0.0, released two days ago, under both |
@mbland I'm using your development version of rules_scala to migrate rules_webtesting in bazelbuild/rules_webtesting#478, works like a charm! |
@meteorcloudy That's awesome! I'm glad that work is already of some use. Thanks for letting me know! |
This fixes CI builds because Bazel 8.0.0 just came out, but `rules_scala` is not yet Bazel 8 compatible, causing `latest Bazel` builds to fail. Part of #1625 and #1652. - https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk?tab=readme-ov-file#how-does-bazelisk-know-which-bazel-version-to-run
Moves `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` and bumps several dependencies as high as they can go and still be compatible with Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1. - `bazel_skylib`: 1.4.1 => 1.7.1 - `go`: 1.19.5 => 1.23.4 - `rules_cc`: 0.0.6 => 0.0.9 - `rules_go`: 0.39.1 => 0.50.1 - `rules_java`: 7.9.0 => 7.12.3 - `rules_python`: 0.36.0 => 0.38.0 The `rules_java` 7.12.13 bump precipitated the following changes: - Adds the `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` in every `WORKSPACE` file per https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/releases/tag/7.12.3. This replaces previous calls to instantiate `rules_java` repos and to register `rules_java` toolchains. - Rearranges the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies to come before the `rules_scala` setup macros. - Updates almost all dependencies on `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchain targets and `.bzl` files to corresponding targets and files in `@rules_java//toolchains:`. - Removes several deprecated flags from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case from `test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh`, and one obsolete flag that caused it to break. --- Moving `rules_scala_dependencies` to `scala/deps.bzl` ensures we get all the versions of dependencies we want in `WORKSPACE`, while providing a new API to consumers. It also prevents `WORKSPACE` from transitively loading any `.bzl` files that load `@rules_java`, ensuring Bazel 8 compatibility per bazelbuild#1652. Reasons for the other `rules_java` related changes include: - The `WORKSPACE` stanza for `rules_java` should've already been present while using the existing version 7.9.0. However, doing so would've broken Bazel 6 builds, as described in detail below. - The `rules_java_toolchains()` call follows the `protobuf_deps()` call instead of immediately following `rules_java_dependencies()` because upgrading to `rules_java` >= 8.5.0 will require this. It has no adverse impact to do it now, amidst the other `WORKSPACE` changes, and will make the eventual `rules_java` >= 8.5.0 diff smaller. - Having the other `WORKSPACE` setup macros for dependencies come before the `rules_scala` setup macros helps ensure consistent, correct initialization before `rules_scala` initialization. - Updating the toolchain specifiers to use `@rules_java//toolchains` fixed `WORKSPACE` build breakages when updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 and later. This is a potentially breaking change for consumers, but in the good kind of way, in that it requires an easy, futureproof update. (`@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type` dependencies remain, as there's not yet a corresponding `@rules_java//toolchains` target.) What follows are detailed notes on why some dependency versions are capped where they are, and on some breakages fixed by these changes. --- `abseil-cpp` and `protobuf` have to stay at 20220623.1 and v21.7, respectively, for Bazel 6 compatibility per bazelbuild#1647. `protobuf` up to v25.5 is compatible with Bazel 6 provided users set the compiler flags mentioned in that issue: ```txt build:linux --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:linux --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:macos --host_cxxopt=-std=c++17 build:windows --cxxopt=/std=c++17 build:windows --host_cxxopt=/std=c++17 ``` --- `rules_python` 0.38.0 => 0.39.0 requires at least `rules_cc` 0.0.10, which introduced `cc/common/cc_info.bzl`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:19:6: Label '@rules_cc//cc/common:cc_info.bzl' is invalid because 'cc/common' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@rules_cc//cc:common/cc_info.bzl'? ``` However, `rules_cc` 0.0.9 => 0.0.10 requires Bazel 7, which defines `CcSharedLibraryHintInfo`: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_cc/cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl:40:33: name 'CcSharedLibraryHintInfo' is not defined (did you mean 'CcSharedLibraryInfo'?) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'test': error loading package 'test': at .../external/rules_python/python/defs.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/py_binary.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/py_binary_macro.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_python/python/private/common_bazel.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_cc/cc/common/cc_common.bzl:17:6: compilation of module 'cc/private/rules_impl/native.bzl' failed ``` --- This section provides a methodical description of the errors encountered and resolved during each step of the `rules_java` update. The proper `WORKSPACE` setup stanza for `rules_java`, which we didn't originally have in place, is: ```py load( "@rules_java//java:repositories.bzl", "rules_java_dependencies", "rules_java_toolchains", ) rules_java_dependencies() rules_java_toolchains() ``` Adding this stanza to `WORKSPACE` while still using `rules_java` 7.9.0 didn't break the Bazel 7.4.1 build, but it broke the Bazel 6.5.0 build. Note the `CompiledWithJava{8,11}_java.jar` references: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ERROR: .../test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-18-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 'java.lang.Iterable com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain$ClassloaderMaskingFileManager.getJavaFileObjectsFromPaths(java.util.Collection)' at com.google.devtools.build.buildjar.javac.BlazeJavacMain.compile(BlazeJavacMain.java:142) [ ...snip... ] ---8<---8<--- End of log ---8<---8<--- ``` Another variation of this I also saw was: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,jmh,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:11:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava11_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ERROR: test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD:5:14: Building test/src/main/resources/java_sources/CompiledWithJava8_java.jar (1 source file) failed: Worker process did not return a WorkResponse: ---8<---8<--- Start of log, file at .../bazel-workers/multiplex-worker-33-Javac.log ---8<---8<--- Error thrown by worker thread, shutting down worker. java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/google/errorprone/ErrorProneError has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 61.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 55.0 at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) [ ...snip... ] ``` Updating the toolchains from `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` to `@rules_java//toolchains:` for targets in `test/BUILD` and `test/src/main/resources/java_sources/BUILD` fixed this particular issue. (More on updating other `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk` toolchain targets below.) Bazel 6.5.0 then failed with the following expected issue, fixed by `rules_java` 7.10.0 via: - bazelbuild/rules_java#210 - bazelbuild/rules_java@30ecf3f ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl:83:34: Use of Starlark transition without allowlist attribute '_allowlist_function_transition'. See Starlark transitions documentation for details and usage: @rules_java//toolchains:java_toolchain_alias.bzl NORMAL ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter/BUILD:3:12: While resolving toolchains for target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter: invalid registered toolchain '//toolchains:all': while parsing '//toolchains:all': error loading package '@rules_java//toolchains': initialization of module 'toolchains/java_toolchain_alias.bzl' failed ERROR: Analysis of target '//src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/coverage/instrumenter:instrumenter' failed; build aborted: ``` Updating to `rules_java` 7.10.0 fixed the Bazel 6.5.0 build, but caused Bazel 7.4.1 to fail with the error I originally described in bazelbuild#1619. For details, see "Bump to rules_java 7.9.0 for Bazel 7 compatibility" in the message for commit cd22d88. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java_builtin/toolchains/BUILD:254:14: While resolving toolchains for target @@rules_java_builtin//toolchains:platformclasspath (096dcc8): No matching toolchains found for types @@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type. To debug, rerun with --toolchain_resolution_debug='@@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type' If platforms or toolchains are a new concept for you, we'd encourage reading https://bazel.build/concepts/platforms-intro. ERROR: Analysis of target '//test/toolchains:java21_toolchain' failed; build aborted: Analysis failed ``` My analysis from bazelbuild#1619 _was_ on the right track. The `rules_java` 7.9.0 built into Bazel's `WORKSPACE` preamble registered `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` toolchains that later versions of `rules_java` couldn't resolve. This was due to the very same change that fixed 6.5.0, bazelbuild/rules_java#210. However, I mistakenly thought we needed to keep `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` as the canonical Java toolchains package instead switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:`. That's why I originally thought we were stuck on `rules_java` 7.9.0. I eventually rediscovered the following issue, which surfaced this problem a month before bazelbuild#1619. The conversation helped me realize that switching to `@rules_java//toolchains:` actually is the preferred, futureproof approach (short of migrating to Bzlmod): - bazelbuild/rules_java: Regression with `@@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` in 7.10.0 bazelbuild/rules_java#214 Switching all `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:` toolchains to `@rules_java//toolchains:` resolved this issue, enabling Bazel 6.5.0 and 7.4.1 to successfully build using `rules_java` 7.12.2. I then updated `rules_java` to 7.12.3, which returns to registering some toolchains as `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type`: - bazelbuild/rules_java#246 - bazelbuild/rules_java@b64eb7d @hvadehra requested that I try 7.12.3 to see if it resolved the issue. I was able to build successfully using this version in a branch without the toolchain updates from this commit. - bazelbuild#1652 (comment) However, the changes from this commit should remain futureproof when `@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` moves to `@rules_java//toolchains:bootstrap_runtime_toolchain_type` again one day. --- Several of the flags removed from the `scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11` test case have been no-ops for years, so removing them eliminated their corresponding deprecation warnings. `--javacopt='--release 11'`, however, caused this breakage after originally bumping to `rules_java` 7.12.2: ```txt $ RULES_SCALA_TEST_ONLY="scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" bash ./test/shell/test_twitter_scrooge.sh running test scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11 WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_javabase' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'host_java_toolchain' is deprecated WARNING: Option 'java_toolchain' is deprecated INFO: Analyzed 64 targets (0 packages loaded, 0 targets configured). INFO: Found 64 targets... ERROR: .../src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/BUILD:3:13: Compiling Java headers src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar (1 source file) failed: (Exit 1): turbine_direct_graal failed: error executing command (from target //src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions:compileoptions) external/remote_java_tools_darwin_arm64/java_tools/turbine_direct_graal --output bazel-out/darwin_arm64-fastbuild/bin/src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/scalac/compileoptions/libcompileoptions-hjar.jar ... (remaining 32 arguments skipped) Use --sandbox_debug to see verbose messages from the sandbox and retain the sandbox build root for debugging java.lang.NullPointerException: attempted to use --release, but JAVA_HOME is not set at [email protected]/java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:259) at com.google.turbine.binder.CtSymClassBinder.bind(CtSymClassBinder.java:55) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.release(Main.java:318) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.bootclasspath(Main.java:304) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:142) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.compile(Main.java:133) at com.google.turbine.main.Main.main(Main.java:89) at [email protected]/java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/sa346b79c.invokeStaticInit(LambdaForm$DMH) INFO: Elapsed time: 0.325s, Critical Path: 0.12s INFO: 11 processes: 10 internal, 1 worker. FAILED: Build did NOT complete successfully Test "scrooge_compile_with_jdk_11" failed (0 sec) ``` See also: - Bazel Blog: Bazel 5.0: https://blog.bazel.build/2022/01/19/bazel-5.0.html#java - bazelbuild/bazel: `incompatible_use_toolchain_resolution_for_java_rules`: use toolchain resolution for Java rules #7849 bazelbuild/bazel#7849 --- Bazel 8 requires `rules_java` 8, per bazelbuild#1652. Updating to `rules_java` 8 will likely happen in a new major release _after_ a release containing the Bzlmod changes. This is because: - The Bzlmod changes alone will work with Bazel 6 without requiring that users update `protobuf` beyond version 21.7. - Bazel 8 requires `protobuf` >= 29.0. Bazel 6 users would have to add the afforementioned C++ compiler flags to support the newer `abseil-cpp` versions required by newer `protobuf` versions. - `rules_scala` itself needs to update ScalaPB to 1.0.0-alpha.1 or higher to support `protobuf` >= v28.0, but this ScalaPB version will _not_ support `protobuf` < v28.0. The idea is that the next major release of `rules_scala` will help users migrate to Bazel 7 and Bzlmod, in either order. Then the next major release after that will enable them to migrate to Bazel 8, with all the requisite dependency upgrades. (Technically it will still support `WORKSPACE`, but hopefully they'll make the jump to Bzlmod first.) See: - bazelbuild#1482 (comment) --- Here are the details explaining how `rules_java` 8 currently breaks `rules_scala`, up until the point that upgrading to `protobuf` >= v29.0 would fix it. `rules_java` 8.0.0 requires Bazel >= 7.3.2, which provides the `subrule` API. Compatibility with Bazel >= 6.3.0 isn't restored until `rules_java` 8.3.2. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: .../external/rules_java/java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl:142:24: name 'subrule' is not defined (did you mean 'rule'?) ERROR: Error computing the main repository mapping: at .../scala/private/extensions/dev_deps.bzl:8:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/repositories.bzl:20:6: at .../external/rules_java/toolchains/local_java_repository.bzl:17:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:18:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_library.bzl:16:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/bazel/rules/bazel_java_library.bzl:21:6: compilation of module 'java/common/rules/android_lint.bzl' failed ``` `rules_java` 8.3.0 is broken, as it can't find its own `@compatibility_proxy` repo: ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/protobuf/io/bazel/rules_scala': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:22:6: at .../external/rules_java/java/java_test.bzl:16:6: Unable to find package for @compatibility_proxy//:proxy.bzl: The repository '@compatibility_proxy' could not be resolved: Repository '@compatibility_proxy' is not defined. ``` `rules_java` 8.3.1 seems to fix this, presumably by importing the `protobuf` repo as `com_google_protobuf`. However, it now requires at least `protobuf` v27.0, which adds `bazel/java/lite_proto_library.bzl`. Per bazelbuild#1647, we'd have to update to ScalaPB 1.0.0-alpha.1 to support `protobuf` v28, abandoning users of previous `protobuf` versions or forcing them to upgrade. ```txt $ bazel build //{src,test,third_party,scala_proto}/... [...snip...] ERROR: error loading package under directory 'src': error loading package 'src/java/io/bazel/rulesscala/worker': at .../external/rules_java/java/defs.bzl:16:6: Label '@com_google_protobuf//bazel:java_lite_proto_library.bzl' is invalid because 'bazel' is not a package; perhaps you meant to put the colon here: '@com_google_protobuf//:bazel/java_lite_proto_library.bzl'? ```
Removes this symbol from `scala/scala.bzl` as well as `setup_scala_testing_toolchain`, and deletes `scala/private/macros/toolchains.bzl`. Part of bazelbuild#1482 and bazelbuild#1652. This is required for Bazel 8 and `rules_java` 8 compatibility, but is also compatible with Bazel 6 and 7. In bazelbuild#1652, @hvadehra suggested partitioning the `.bzl` files such that `WORKSPACE` doesn't `load` a file that tries to `load` symbols from `rules_java`. I successfully did so in a separate branch, and along with other minor changes, got `rules_scala` to build with `rules_java` 8.5.1. The other changes will come in separate pull requests, but it makes sense to land this change now before adding any other toolchains to `scala_toolchains`. --- Arguably, we should remove all macros exported from `scala/scala.bzl` that only instantiate toolchain dependencies and define toolchains. That may be a breaking change for some users, but will ultimately be necessary for these macros to remain compatible with Bazel 8.
Just added another weekly update to #1482, in which I include Bazel 8 updates, since both sets of changes are intertwined in my mind. Of note: Code wise, nothing's changed in the past week (modulo merging #1671 and rebasing #1653 and #1660 as a result), but I'm still occasionally checking to ensure the bzlmod-bazel-8 branch remains compatible with the latest Bazel rolling release and Bazel last_green build. |
When testing Bazel 8.0.0 RC versions I discovered rules_scala may be incompatible with the latest rules_java (that you in turn my need for Bazel 8.0.0).
This came out when testing a Bazel bug's solution: bazelbuild/bazel#24235.
After upgrading rules_java to 8.5.0+ rules_scala reported errors:
Please note, that rules_cc version is also too "old" for Bazel 8.0.0, so I upgraded it on my branch too explicitly. It may need to be updated in rules_scala.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: