Support dynamic execution requirements with cc_tool#718
Open
keith wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Some execution requirements, like those based on the Xcode installation providers, are not known statically and therefore cannot be hardcoded in tags. This adds a new provider that users can provide as a dependency of the cc_tool to propagate these dynamic requirements. There isn't a rule to construct this provider because if you can hardcode it in a rule's definition you should just use `tags` instead
Member
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some execution requirements, like those based on the Xcode installation
providers, are not known statically and therefore cannot be hardcoded in
tags. This adds a new provider that users can provide as a dependency of
the cc_tool to propagate these dynamic requirements.
There isn't a rule to construct this provider because if you can
hardcode it in a rule's definition you should just use
tagsinstead