-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 448
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
Bump Bazel dependency versions to enable using latest Bazel #3979
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1 +0,0 @@ | ||
5.4.0 | ||
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 P4Runtime version is now very different from the one the compiler actually uses.
https://github.com/p4lang/p4runtime/tree/7a322f35f0c80bf20bc7fcc96f9d1ab77e5fd07a
So the open-source framework will not test that version.
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.
Just to clarify -- are you saying p4c uses different versions of P4Runtime in the cbuild vs bazel build? Or something else?
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, if the version in the
p4c_deps
file is what is used to generate the protobuf C++ files etc. But it looks like this has been the case for a while already.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.
For the bazel build alone, I guess the major user is Google. And internally at Google, we do build p4c together with the latest version of its dependencies including p4runtime. So I think using the latest version here makes sense.
But I do worry there could be potential issues, maybe uncaught yet, that stems from this version difference.
Also ping @lzhzero for reference.
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.
You can try to update the P4Runtime version for the compiler, too. But I think there might be some complications because of the protobuf version.
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.
Sure, we can try that in the future. Good to know the complications.
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.
Thanks for raising that, Fabian.
Thus far we haven't been super careful about keeping these versions aligned with the cbuild, which is the source of truth. Agreed that there is a danger that this could cause issues, but thus far we haven't seen any. So personally, I am okay with winging things for now -- we can refine our approach once we hit an issue. Wdyt?
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.
Yeah I have no problem with that. Let me know when you want this merged.
The only reason why the open-source P4C version is not updated is because of the Protobuf dependency. It seems, to get a newer version of Protobuf, we need to build it from scratch. That adds an unacceptable overhead. I have not found a good alternative to the Ubuntu packaged version.
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.
Ah, yes, Google likes building its libraries from scratch, so there may not be a good alternative.
We can go ahead and merge this from my side. @qobilidop ?
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.
I have no issues with merging this.