Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Initial setup #1

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 16, 2019
Merged

Initial setup #1

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 16, 2019

Conversation

mattklein123
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@mattklein123 mattklein123 force-pushed the initial_repo_setup branch 6 times, most recently from f293ae5 to 73edfe8 Compare April 15, 2019 20:35
Signed-off-by: Matt Klein <[email protected]>
@mattklein123 mattklein123 changed the title [WIP] Initial setup Initial setup Apr 15, 2019
@mattklein123
Copy link
Member Author

@junr03 PTAL

@envoyproxy envoyproxy deleted a comment from mattklein123 Apr 15, 2019
STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CONTRIBUTING.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CONTRIBUTING.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CONTRIBUTING.md Show resolved Hide resolved
STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/build.sh Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/build.sh Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Matt Klein <[email protected]>
@mattklein123
Copy link
Member Author

@junr03 updated

junr03
junr03 previously approved these changes Apr 16, 2019
Copy link
Member

@junr03 junr03 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

Signed-off-by: Matt Klein <[email protected]>
@mattklein123 mattklein123 merged commit 948079a into master Apr 16, 2019
@mattklein123 mattklein123 deleted the initial_repo_setup branch April 16, 2019 16:50
keith added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2020
With this change we can remove our custom swift_static_framework rule
and replace it with the rules_apple ios_static_framework rule. There are
a few behavioral differences here that required other changes.

1. ios_static_framework uses `-enable-library-evolution`, which means we
   get a `swiftinterface` file instead of a `swiftmodule`. This opts us
   in to having to guarantee some level of binary compatibility (once we
   hit 1.0 at least) but has the benefit of not requiring consumers to
   be on the exact same Xcode version as what we build with
2. To Support #1 we had to remove the bridging header use, this was
   previously required because if we imported the Objective-C dependency
   directly it also had to be shipped to consumers. Now we use
   `@_implementationOnly` imports with this, and consume it with
   `private_deps` so it's not exposed to consumers at all. This is a
   new-ish private feature in the Swift compiler to support this type of
   use case.
3. To propagate the correct header with the framework so that it can be
   imported by Objective-C (which isn't automatically done by
   rules_swift / rules_apple
   bazelbuild/rules_swift#291) we need to
   access it from the swift_library target, which I wrote a tiny rule to
   do.

Signed-off-by: Keith Smiley <[email protected]>
keith added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2020
With this change we can remove our custom swift_static_framework rule
and replace it with the rules_apple ios_static_framework rule. There are
a few behavioral differences here that required other changes.

1. ios_static_framework uses `-enable-library-evolution`, which means we
   get a `swiftinterface` file instead of a `swiftmodule`. This opts us
   in to having to guarantee some level of binary compatibility (once we
   hit 1.0 at least) but has the benefit of not requiring consumers to
   be on the exact same Xcode version as what we build with
2. To Support #1 we had to remove the bridging header use, this was
   previously required because if we imported the Objective-C dependency
   directly it also had to be shipped to consumers. Now we use
   `@_implementationOnly` imports with this, and consume it with
   `private_deps` so it's not exposed to consumers at all. This is a
   new-ish private feature in the Swift compiler to support this type of
   use case.
3. To propagate the correct header with the framework so that it can be
   imported by Objective-C (which isn't automatically done by
   rules_swift / rules_apple
   bazelbuild/rules_swift#291) we need to
   access it from the swift_library target, which I wrote a tiny rule to
   do.

Signed-off-by: Keith Smiley <[email protected]>
keith added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2022
When building the jni dylib for android, we previously stripped all
debug info to decrease the artifact size. With this change we now
produce the same stripped binary as before, but before stripping it we
create a dump of the debug info suitable for crash reporting.

This is made overly difficult for a few reasons:

1. Bazel doesn't support fission for Android bazelbuild/bazel#14765
2. Extra outputs from rules are not propagated up the dependency tree,
   so just building `android_dist` at the top level, isn't enough to get
   the extra outputs built as well
3. Building the library manually alongside the android artifact on the
   command line results in 2 separate builds, one for android as a
   transitive dependency of `android_dist` and one for the host
   platform

This change avoids #1 fission for now, but the same approach could be used
once that change makes its way to a bazel release.

This change ignores #2 but fixes #3 so it requires you to explicitly
build the library as part of the command line invocation if you want
debug info, like:

```
./bazelw build --fat_apk_cpu=... android_dist //library/common/jni:libenvoy_jni.so.debug_info
```

Theoretically we could probably shove this artifact into the aar to make
sure it was correctly produced, but that risks us accidentally shipping
that in the aar.

Signed-off-by: Keith Smiley <[email protected]>
keith added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2022
When building the jni dylib for android, we previously stripped all
debug info to decrease the artifact size. With this change we now
produce the same stripped binary as before, but before stripping it we
create a dump of the debug info suitable for crash reporting.

This is made overly difficult for a few reasons:

1. Bazel doesn't support fission for Android bazelbuild/bazel#14765
2. Extra outputs from rules are not propagated up the dependency tree,
   so just building `android_dist` at the top level, isn't enough to get
   the extra outputs built as well
3. Building the library manually alongside the android artifact on the
   command line results in 2 separate builds, one for android as a
   transitive dependency of `android_dist` and one for the host
   platform

This change avoids #1 fission for now, but the same approach could be used
once that change makes its way to a bazel release.

This change fixes #2 by using a separate output group that can be depended
on by the genrule that writes to dist while avoiding #3 because the custom
rule producing these uses the android transition.

Signed-off-by: Keith Smiley <[email protected]>
jpsim added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2022
This was causing hangs/crashes in our Lyft apps so I'm reverting this
while I continue to investigate.

Here's the crash backtrace I'm seeing on iOS (not very helpful
unfortunately):

```
* thread #11, stop reason = signal SIGABRT
  * frame #0: 0x000000013a02300e libsystem_kernel.dylib`__pthread_kill + 10
    frame #1: 0x00000001399a61ff libsystem_pthread.dylib`pthread_kill + 263
    frame #2: 0x0000000138905684 libsystem_c.dylib`abort + 123
    frame #3: 0x00000001024793af Lyft`___lldb_unnamed_symbol4253$$Lyft + 3231
    frame #4: 0x000000010247e0c7 Lyft`___lldb_unnamed_symbol4339$$Lyft + 130
    frame #5: 0x00000001399a64e1 libsystem_pthread.dylib`_pthread_start + 125
    frame #6: 0x00000001399a1f6b libsystem_pthread.dylib`thread_start + 15
```

This breaks h3 functionality, which merged yesterday and is as of yet
unused.

Signed-off-by: JP Simard <[email protected]>
@Augustyniak Augustyniak mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants