Esempio n. 1
0
  private void resolveExplicitAttributes(
      Rule rule,
      final BuildConfiguration configuration,
      AttributeMap attributes,
      final ImmutableSortedKeyListMultimap.Builder<Attribute, LabelAndConfiguration> builder) {
    attributes.visitLabels(
        new AttributeMap.AcceptsLabelAttribute() {
          @Override
          public void acceptLabelAttribute(Label label, Attribute attribute) {
            String attributeName = attribute.getName();
            if (attributeName.equals("abi_deps")) {
              // abi_deps is handled specially: we visit only the branch that
              // needs to be taken based on the configuration.
              return;
            }

            if (attribute.getType() == BuildType.NODEP_LABEL) {
              return;
            }

            if (attribute.isImplicit() || attribute.isLateBound()) {
              return;
            }

            builder.put(attribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, configuration));
          }
        });

    // TODO(bazel-team): Remove this in favor of the new configurable attributes.
    if (attributes.getAttributeDefinition("abi_deps") != null) {
      Attribute depsAttribute = attributes.getAttributeDefinition("deps");
      MakeVariableExpander.Context context =
          new ConfigurationMakeVariableContext(rule.getPackage(), configuration);
      String abi = null;
      try {
        abi = MakeVariableExpander.expand(attributes.get("abi", Type.STRING), context);
      } catch (MakeVariableExpander.ExpansionException e) {
        // Ignore this. It will be handled during the analysis phase.
      }

      if (abi != null) {
        for (Map.Entry<String, List<Label>> entry :
            attributes.get("abi_deps", BuildType.LABEL_LIST_DICT).entrySet()) {
          try {
            if (Pattern.matches(entry.getKey(), abi)) {
              for (Label label : entry.getValue()) {
                builder.put(depsAttribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, configuration));
              }
            }
          } catch (PatternSyntaxException e) {
            // Ignore this. It will be handled during the analysis phase.
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
Esempio n. 2
0
  private void resolveImplicitAttributes(
      Rule rule,
      BuildConfiguration configuration,
      AttributeMap attributeMap,
      Iterable<Attribute> attributes,
      ImmutableSortedKeyListMultimap.Builder<Attribute, LabelAndConfiguration> builder) {
    // Since the attributes that come from aspects do not appear in attributeMap, we have to get
    // their values from somewhere else. This incidentally means that aspects attributes are not
    // configurable. It would be nice if that wasn't the case, but we'd have to revamp how
    // attribute mapping works, which is a large chunk of work.
    ImmutableSet<String> mappedAttributes = ImmutableSet.copyOf(attributeMap.getAttributeNames());
    for (Attribute attribute : attributes) {
      if (!attribute.isImplicit() || !attribute.getCondition().apply(attributeMap)) {
        continue;
      }

      if (attribute.getType() == BuildType.LABEL) {
        Label label =
            mappedAttributes.contains(attribute.getName())
                ? attributeMap.get(attribute.getName(), BuildType.LABEL)
                : BuildType.LABEL.cast(attribute.getDefaultValue(rule));

        if (label != null) {
          builder.put(attribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, configuration));
        }
      } else if (attribute.getType() == BuildType.LABEL_LIST) {
        List<Label> labelList =
            mappedAttributes.contains(attribute.getName())
                ? attributeMap.get(attribute.getName(), BuildType.LABEL_LIST)
                : BuildType.LABEL_LIST.cast(attribute.getDefaultValue(rule));

        for (Label label : labelList) {
          builder.put(attribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, configuration));
        }
      }
    }
  }
Esempio n. 3
0
 /**
  * Adds new dependencies to the given rule under the given attribute name
  *
  * @param result the builder for the attribute --> dependency labels map
  * @param rule the rule being evaluated
  * @param attrName the name of the attribute to add dependency labels to
  * @param labels the dependencies to add
  * @param configuration the configuration to apply to those dependencies
  */
 private void addExplicitDeps(
     ImmutableSortedKeyListMultimap.Builder<Attribute, LabelAndConfiguration> result,
     Rule rule,
     String attrName,
     Iterable<Label> labels,
     BuildConfiguration configuration) {
   if (!rule.isAttrDefined(attrName, BuildType.LABEL_LIST)
       && !rule.isAttrDefined(attrName, BuildType.NODEP_LABEL_LIST)) {
     return;
   }
   Attribute attribute = rule.getRuleClassObject().getAttributeByName(attrName);
   for (Label label : labels) {
     // The configuration must be the configuration after the first transition step (applying
     // split configurations). The proper configuration (null) for package groups will be set
     // later.
     result.put(attribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, configuration));
   }
 }
Esempio n. 4
0
  private void resolveLateBoundAttributes(
      Rule rule,
      BuildConfiguration configuration,
      BuildConfiguration hostConfiguration,
      AttributeMap attributeMap,
      Iterable<Attribute> attributes,
      ImmutableSortedKeyListMultimap.Builder<Attribute, LabelAndConfiguration> builder)
      throws EvalException, InterruptedException {
    for (Attribute attribute : attributes) {
      if (!attribute.isLateBound() || !attribute.getCondition().apply(attributeMap)) {
        continue;
      }

      List<BuildConfiguration> actualConfigurations = ImmutableList.of(configuration);
      if (attribute.getConfigurationTransition() instanceof SplitTransition<?>) {
        Preconditions.checkState(attribute.getConfigurator() == null);
        // TODO(bazel-team): This ends up applying the split transition twice, both here and in the
        // visitRule method below - this is not currently a problem, because the configuration graph
        // never contains nested split transitions, so the second application is idempotent.
        actualConfigurations =
            configuration.getSplitConfigurations(
                (SplitTransition<?>) attribute.getConfigurationTransition());
      }

      for (BuildConfiguration actualConfig : actualConfigurations) {
        @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
        LateBoundDefault<BuildConfiguration> lateBoundDefault =
            (LateBoundDefault<BuildConfiguration>) attribute.getLateBoundDefault();
        if (lateBoundDefault.useHostConfiguration()) {
          actualConfig = hostConfiguration;
        }
        // TODO(bazel-team): This might be too expensive - can we cache this somehow?
        if (!lateBoundDefault.getRequiredConfigurationFragments().isEmpty()) {
          if (!actualConfig.hasAllFragments(lateBoundDefault.getRequiredConfigurationFragments())) {
            continue;
          }
        }

        // TODO(bazel-team): We should check if the implementation tries to access an undeclared
        // fragment.
        Object actualValue = lateBoundDefault.getDefault(rule, actualConfig);
        if (EvalUtils.isNullOrNone(actualValue)) {
          continue;
        }
        try {
          if (attribute.getType() == BuildType.LABEL) {
            Label label = BuildType.LABEL.cast(actualValue);
            builder.put(attribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, actualConfig));
          } else if (attribute.getType() == BuildType.LABEL_LIST) {
            for (Label label : BuildType.LABEL_LIST.cast(actualValue)) {
              builder.put(attribute, LabelAndConfiguration.of(label, actualConfig));
            }
          } else {
            throw new IllegalStateException(
                String.format(
                    "Late bound attribute '%s' is not a label or a label list",
                    attribute.getName()));
          }
        } catch (ClassCastException e) {
          throw new EvalException(
              rule.getLocation(),
              String.format(
                  "When computing the default value of %s, expected '%s', got '%s'",
                  attribute.getName(),
                  attribute.getType(),
                  EvalUtils.getDataTypeName(actualValue, true)));
        }
      }
    }
  }
Esempio n. 5
0
  private ListMultimap<Attribute, LabelAndConfiguration> resolveAttributes(
      Rule rule,
      AspectDefinition aspect,
      BuildConfiguration configuration,
      BuildConfiguration hostConfiguration,
      Set<ConfigMatchingProvider> configConditions)
      throws EvalException, InterruptedException {
    ConfiguredAttributeMapper attributeMap = ConfiguredAttributeMapper.of(rule, configConditions);
    attributeMap.validateAttributes();
    List<Attribute> attributes;
    if (aspect == null) {
      attributes = rule.getRuleClassObject().getAttributes();
    } else {
      attributes = new ArrayList<>();
      attributes.addAll(rule.getRuleClassObject().getAttributes());
      if (aspect != null) {
        attributes.addAll(aspect.getAttributes().values());
      }
    }

    ImmutableSortedKeyListMultimap.Builder<Attribute, LabelAndConfiguration> result =
        ImmutableSortedKeyListMultimap.builder();

    resolveExplicitAttributes(rule, configuration, attributeMap, result);
    resolveImplicitAttributes(rule, configuration, attributeMap, attributes, result);
    resolveLateBoundAttributes(
        rule, configuration, hostConfiguration, attributeMap, attributes, result);

    // Add the rule's visibility labels (which may come from the rule or from package defaults).
    addExplicitDeps(
        result, rule, "visibility", rule.getVisibility().getDependencyLabels(), configuration);

    // Add package default constraints when the rule doesn't explicitly declare them.
    //
    // Note that this can have subtle implications for constraint semantics. For example: say that
    // package defaults declare compatibility with ':foo' and rule R declares compatibility with
    // ':bar'. Does that mean that R is compatible with [':foo', ':bar'] or just [':bar']? In other
    // words, did R's author intend to add additional compatibility to the package defaults or to
    // override them? More severely, what if package defaults "restrict" support to just [':baz']?
    // Should R's declaration signify [':baz'] + ['bar'], [ORIGINAL_DEFAULTS] + ['bar'], or
    // something else?
    //
    // Rather than try to answer these questions with possibly confusing logic, we take the
    // simple approach of assigning the rule's "restriction" attribute to the rule-declared value if
    // it exists, else the package defaults value (and likewise for "compatibility"). This may not
    // always provide what users want, but it makes it easy for them to understand how rule
    // declarations and package defaults intermix (and how to refactor them to get what they want).
    //
    // An alternative model would be to apply the "rule declaration" / "rule class defaults"
    // relationship, i.e. the rule class' "compatibility" and "restriction" declarations are merged
    // to generate a set of default environments, then the rule's declarations are independently
    // processed on top of that. This protects against obscure coupling behavior between
    // declarations from wildly different places (e.g. it offers clear answers to the examples posed
    // above). But within the scope of a single package it seems better to keep the model simple and
    // make the user responsible for resolving ambiguities.
    if (!rule.isAttributeValueExplicitlySpecified(RuleClass.COMPATIBLE_ENVIRONMENT_ATTR)) {
      addExplicitDeps(
          result,
          rule,
          RuleClass.COMPATIBLE_ENVIRONMENT_ATTR,
          rule.getPackage().getDefaultCompatibleWith(),
          configuration);
    }
    if (!rule.isAttributeValueExplicitlySpecified(RuleClass.RESTRICTED_ENVIRONMENT_ATTR)) {
      addExplicitDeps(
          result,
          rule,
          RuleClass.RESTRICTED_ENVIRONMENT_ATTR,
          rule.getPackage().getDefaultRestrictedTo(),
          configuration);
    }

    return result.build();
  }