Is there a way to use globs in dependency declarations Like

Question

Is there a way to use globs in dependency declarations Like perhaps via macro Context in thread

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

I m trying to group files by component in the context of functional acceptance testing The tests won t actually have import dependencies on these files since they ll be packaged and launched in VMs elsewhere and the tests only call them via API

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

No The closest there is using a generic `target` as a bag of dependencies Honestly address syntax has gotten so complex and is going to get even more complex with the upcoming parametrize feature that I d be really hesitant to add even more variants on address syntax We believe the complexity is a necessary evil but still

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

I get that

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

Not that it will necessarily solve this particular issue but the other angle is to continue lowering the times you need to explicitly use addresses Two recent examples < bitter ability 32190> s great work on asset inference codegen is now less verbose

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

I mean I suppose I could write a plugin to do this

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

As long as there s a rule for getting files from globs

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

ah or I could just use tags and `overrides`

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

gt As long as there s a rule for getting files from globs Yeah although here you probably want the addresses of those file globs right The plugin hook for dependency inference expects you to return `Addresses` You can use `Get Owners OwnersRequest `

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

gt ah or I could just use tags and overrides How so

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

gt I mean I suppose I could write a plugin to do this How frequent will this problem be Are you adding a new testing framework it sounds like that might be replicated in multiple places If so a plugin could be a really good idea You spend some time to make things much more intuitive and automatic for your org s users

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

Frequent enough to justify it as a plugin if we do it more but that s still an if I m just looking for a fast option for a PoC right now

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

I think I can cheat and make tags that are named like a component address

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

```python sources name= aiven sources= aiven py overrides= aiven admin cli py tags components admin commands ```

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

and then `components admin commands BUILD` can be a bare `target ` that I can make the tests depend on

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

how do you go from that `tags` into it pulling in dependencies `tags` isn t wired up to `dependencies` unless you add a plugin

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

`filter` + `peek`

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

lol this is getting messy

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

oh yeah because this is only piping things into your custom test runner That could work but do note that ` pants dependencies` will be lying and ` changed since` too For quick and dirty I d recommend using `target ` as a bag of dependencies For robust and hopefully not too slow I d recommend the plugin Lmk if you re interested in this route I think it d only be about 20 lines of code

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

` pants changed since=main list | xargs pants filter tag regex= ^components | pants peek | jq uniqe tag `

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

ugh yeah idk

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

gt Lmk if you re interested in this route I can try to find some examples you can crib if you want when redesigning `example plugin` repo we should definitely have examples of this plugin hook Might also be helpful to show off a pants plugin to coworkers

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

I think as long as I can get this to work no one cares haha

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

well my teammates would care actually

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

seems like a plugin would just need a custom field `glob dependencies` or something like that and then I could define targets that use that like a barebones `component` target

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

yeah that s totally feasible You would 1 Use a plugin field to add it to what you want 2 You can use dependency injection plugin hook rather than dependency inference tl dr is that dependency injection does not require a `sources` field See for an example rule Use `inject for = Dependencies` rather than something more specific which means this will get used for every single target 3 In your rule also use the `WrappedTarget` line Then `tgt get DependenciesGlobField ` Now use that to call `await Get Owners OwnersRequest ` 4 Register the `UnionRule`

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

Btw I hadn t thought of the idea of a new field That s a great idea That makes me much more open to Pants adding this feature because you avoid making the syntax of `dependencies` even more complex Still an open question if it s desirable to add but cool

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

cool i ll give it a try

hundreds-father-404 · Answer

FYI this will not play nicely with the upcoming `parametrize` feature meant to make multiple resolves lockfiles ergonomic For example ```python source name= utils source= utils py resolve=parametrize python default data science ``` That is syntactic sugar for creating two targets `dir utils amp resolve=python default` and `dir utils amp resolve=data science` It s important that you don t depend on both because Pants won t like that you re attempting to use two resolves in the same closure A glob of `dir utils py` would match both targets as they re both the owners Now you could make your plugin hook fancy and proactively filter out targets from `Owners` that it doesn t like Totally feasible Only holdup is that it means we would have a harder time generalizing this to pantsbuild pants as a field on every single target cc < witty crayon 22786>

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

I don t think we ll be using multiple resolves for quite a while

flat-zoo-31952 · Answer

Okie doke took me a while to get around to this but it works pretty decently <https gist github com jriddy b3f8341033d8b16d18b4feb4945d322d>