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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
fix(bazel): generate java assembly for type-only #169
fix(bazel): generate java assembly for type-only #169
Changes from all commits
9b30a09
43b84ef
4200365
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is consistent with the rest of the file so I think it's good in the context of the PR.
However, do we want to keep the it consistent with the names of regular packages? I don't see anything wrong with
google-cloud-alloydb-connectors-v1alpha-java
for types only packages. It may not matter for Bazel bot but the benefit I see is thatThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Type only packages don't always have a version in them, sometimes they are just
google/shopping/type
. In this case it would likegoogle-shopping-type-java
which isn't bad either.Why don't we just use this name
type_only_assembly_name
variable here, and I will change the code in a separate PR to update the format of its value. It will impact other languages as well so best to keep in a separate PR.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, agree that it should be a different PR even if we want to change it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's probably my own lack of understanding, why do we need this for Java but not for other languages?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No idea tbh. I just saw it in the same target for GAPIC libraries and copied.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps because the protos are included in the generated code under the
proto-
directory?