Ergonomic, hermetic, user-friendly software build system for Python, Go, Java, Kotlin, Protobuf, Scala, Shell. Pants lets you fearlessly scale up your codebase!

Pants

I just noticed that <https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/blob/459d39bb39f1f6bef605fd3b4fa129c5d721ea6f/src/python/pants/engine/process.py#L309|fallible_to_exec_result_or_raise> is a `@rule` but is not `async`, and yet we await it explicltly in a few places and I guess that works… :shrug:

I’m wondering what the call-by-name idiom should be for Process-&gt;ProcessResult. That is extremely common, so it seems like we should have a direct rule for it, rather than awaiting on this and having to implicitly go from Process-&gt;FallibleProcessResult

Re async/sync, I guess you may've found that the rule decorator makes the final function `async` even if the input is sync: <https://github.com/huonw/pants/blob/fa583d6b36df4c7bb1c560dc5429d1bfb474ba51/src/python/pants/engine/rules.py#L204>

Wrapper call-by-name functions for common compositions sounds good to me!

Yeah, that seems wonky, we should require rules to be defined as async…