5 ms·

I looked into Bazel. I like it overall, but it makes a lot of assumptions about the layout of your projects. For example, the java_test rule looks for all class

by varikin 11y ago

I looked into Bazel. I like it overall, but it makes a lot of assumptions about the layout of your projects. For example, the java_test rule looks for all classes under a java or javatests folder trying to figure out the package and full Java class name to feed into the JUnit runner. I understand this is a standard Maven layout, but we don't have a standard Maven layout (not using Maven). Instead of the java_test rule failing, it passes because no tests failed, but no tests were found either... It figure this out, I had to patch Bazel with printlns where tries to find all the tests. A coworker found a similar issue with assumptions around the project layout, but I can't remember what it was. Being that Bazel is was Alpha at the time, now Beta, I am not going to write it off yet. If nothing else, better documentation about assumed layouts would be great.

skybrian 11y ago
Actually, that's not Maven. In Maven, each project has its own java directory. With Blaze (and I assume Bazel), Java libraries from entirely different projects all live in the same giant java and javatests subtrees. Behold the glory of the monolithic repository!
GauntletWizard 11y ago
Bazel's opinionated nature is it's blessing and curse. If you follow it's rules (fairly simple, internally consistent, and well thought out), it's amazing, and you need think a lot less about "where does this file go?", etc. If you don't have all those rules in your head, or if you're inconsistent about them, it's a nightmare. Thankfully, it's a nightmare that can be fixed, and it behooves you to do so: Bazel's simple artifacts and build speedups are well worth the time you spend converting to it.