chore(examples): add example for ng packagr

[lukasholzer]

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix
• Feature (please, look at the "Scope of the project" section in the README.md file)
• Code style update (formatting, local variables)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Build related changes
• CI related changes
• Documentation content changes
• Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

This example should demonstrate the usage of packaging an angular
library with the ng_package rule from @angular/bazel in combination with the ts_library rule in combination with the angular plugin.

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Other information

[alexeagle]

that's interesting, from the description I assumed you were using the
load("@npm//ng-packagr:index.bzl", "ng_packagr")
rule here to leverage the normal tooling Angular developers rely on rather than the custom ng_package rule used only by Angular internal
/cc @alan-agius4

[alan-agius4]

@alexeagle, I got the same impression.

I'd definitely recommend using load("@npm//ng-packagr:index.bzl", "ng_packagr") unless you really need more fine grain library builds.

[lukasholzer]

@alan-agius4 I did The steps suggested by the Bazel Angular Docs https://angular.github.io/bazel-builds/src/ng_package/ng_package.html#ng_package

So I've used the installed @angular/bazel package where the rule load("@npm_angular_bazel//:index.bzl", "ng_package") is coming from.

[alexeagle]

I think the Angular team is deprecating the @angular/bazel package (it was in Labs) so we'd rather not show users how to make new dependencies on it. The ng_package rule is likely to be removed from the public API. Instead we want everyone to use the supported mechanism which is the ng-packagr library.

[alexeagle]

It looks like we have an ng-packagr example already here
https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_nodejs/blob/master/examples/angular_bazel_architect/angular.json#L139
so I think this can be closed?

[lukasholzer]

@alexeagle It is an example with the architect – I think there should be an example without using the architect as the architect only allows incremental rebuilds per library and not as granular as it should be with bazel.

I'm not sure if the packagr is needed for the angular package format or if the same can be achieved with rollup? But I think there should be an example of creating an Angular publishable library (Angular Package Format) with the benefits of incremental builds.

[alan-agius4]

@jbedard, was also looking to do something similar.

[alan-agius4]

@alexeagle It is an example with the architect – I think there should be an example without using the architect as the architect only allows incremental rebuilds per library and not as granular as it should be with bazel.

This is that same for this PR, there is no different in using my-packagr directly via using the architect-cli.

[jbedard]

This seems to be @angular/bazel, not ng-packagr...?

[alan-agius4]

Ohh, the title of this PR always confuses me 😓

[jbedard]

Ohh, the title of this PR always confuses me 😓

I agree :P

[alexeagle]

updated the title to explain - the issue is when we drop @angular/bazel you lose the ng_package rule and it would be nice to have a replacement

[jbedard]

I was trying ng-packagr but as a plain npm package it gets invoked quite differently then ng_package. I got ng_package working (thanks @gregmagolan !) by doing: angular/angular#37727 (comment)

[alexeagle]

Yeah given time constraints I think you should stick with @angular/bazel for now.
Other angular ecosystem projects like components and ngrx use it so there's no risk it disappears.

[alan-agius4]

@alexeagle, actually it seems that NGRX are moving away from Bazel in favor of NX with ng-packagr.

[github-actions]

This Pull Request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity for 90 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs in two weeks. Collaborators can add a "cleanup" or "need: discussion" label to keep it open indefinitely. Thanks for your contributions to rules_nodejs!

[github-actions]

This PR was automatically closed because it went two weeks without a reply since it was labeled "Can Close?"