build: update antlr version #4555
Conversation
NO_CHANGELOG
|
This change is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 19 of 20 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @matzf and @oncilla)
nogo.json line 72 at r2 (raw file):
"antlr": "", "gazelle/pathtools/path.go": "", "/com_github_antlr_antlr4_runtime_go_antlr/": "",
can this be removed then?
nogo.json line 228 at r2 (raw file):
} } }
add newline?
WORKSPACE line 60 at r2 (raw file):
go_register_toolchains( nogo = "@//:nogo", version = "1.21.11",
shouldn't that match the version in go.mod?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 19 of 20 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @lukedirtwalker and @oncilla)
WORKSPACE line 60 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, lukedirtwalker (Lukas Vogel) wrote…
shouldn't that match the version in go.mod?
If we don't want to bump our go version as a side effect of this, note that antlr-go 4.13.0 seems to be compatible with go 1.21, and judging from the diff between these versions, there is nothing too important that we'd miss.
I don't understand why they bumped the go version...
Note: the version of antlr-go is not the same thing as the thing loaded by rules_antrl_dependencies("4.13.1") -- the version numbers are similar, but apparently not directly related.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @oncilla)
|
We can upgrade Go anyway. See #4603 |
This required upgrading rules_go to 0.47.0 because of some magic parameter that must now be passed to the go assembler in support of the internal/V0 ABI split in go 1.22. It wasn't possible to upgrade rules_go further without also upgrading bazel and other stuff. So... one problem at a time. As a result of rules_go upgrade, the proto generation has changed, hence the other diffs. Contributes to #4555
|
Go has been updated. This should be good to go in. |
|
@oncilla Are you not going to merge this? |
|
@jiceatscion it is currently very low on my priority list. I do not have time to spend on this. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will merge it if straighforward.
Reviewed 6 of 7 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 19 of 20 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @lukedirtwalker, @matzf, and @oncilla)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 6 of 7 files at r3, 3 of 3 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status:complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @oncilla)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 20 of 21 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @lukedirtwalker and @matzf)
nogo.json line 228 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, lukedirtwalker (Lukas Vogel) wrote…
add newline?
done
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r8, all commit messages.
Reviewable status:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for standing by. For the record, I did self-approve my fixes to the lint issues.
Reviewable status:
NO_CHANGELOG