feat: Extract rust_clippy_action to allow other rulesets to run clippy#3660
Merged
UebelAndre merged 2 commits intobazelbuild:mainfrom Oct 9, 2025
Merged
Conversation
blorente
force-pushed
the
blorente/extract_action_for_rules_lint
branch
from
7a9fb72 to
b1b6e9e
Compare
blorente
commented
Oct 7, 2025
| success_marker (File): A file that will be written if the clippy succeeds. | ||
| cap_at_warnings (bool): If set, it will cap all reports as warnings, allowing the build to continue even with clippy failures | ||
| extra_clippy_flags (List[str]): A list of extra options to pass to clippy | ||
| error_format (str): Which error format to use. Must be acceptable by rustc: https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/rustc/command-line-arguments.html#--error-format-control-how-errors-are-produced |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inside rules_rust, we can use the rustc.bzl file's utility functions to get this. I tried exposing them, but it felt like a leaky enough abstraction that this solution seemed cleaner.
blorente
force-pushed
the
blorente/extract_action_for_rules_lint
branch
2 times, most recently
from
593f792 to
f0d657a
Compare
blorente
force-pushed
the
blorente/extract_action_for_rules_lint
branch
from
f0d657a to
b76a1bb
Compare
# Conflicts: # rust/private/clippy.bzl
blorente
force-pushed
the
blorente/extract_action_for_rules_lint
branch
from
b76a1bb to
c253b1a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Could I get another approval for the formatting workflow? |
UebelAndre
requested changes
Oct 8, 2025
Collaborator
UebelAndre
left a comment
UebelAndre
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One small request but otherwise seems fine!
github-merge-queue
Bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
Contributor
Author
|
The merge queue failure seems to be unrelated: https://buildkite.com/bazel/rules-rust-rustlang/builds/15743/steps/canvas?sid=0199c539-cfda-4661-9b9c-ebe0adfcc847#0199c54a-fed2-41f9-b51e-22dafb24d35f/10-34 |
github-merge-queue
Bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
github-merge-queue
Bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
github-merge-queue
Bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Extract the action to run clippy into an importable struct, so that other rulesets can use it.
This is an alternative fix for #3607. Since
rules_lintdoes allow transitive semantics for linting, we can use the clippy action there, and users who want clippy to be transitive can userules_lintto run it.The tests pass, and I've also tested it manually against a branch of
rules_lint.Reviewing instructions:
rust/defs.bzl. We expose two new functions: One to get the crate info, and one to create the clippy action itself.run_clippy. I've tried to select a reasonable boundary for the arguments, but I'm definitely open to opinions. For instance, we don't ever readctx.attrsinrun_clippy, because we don't want to force users to implement the same arguments and flags, but that may be wrong.run_clippy, to see if it preserves the semantics you'd expect, particularly around capturing output.run_clippy