Ignas Anikevicius
Ignas Anikevicius
Thank you for this suggestion. I think REPL improvements would be more welcome at this point. Are there things that are not possible to do in the current implementation? >...
> 1. That would be great! Do I understand correctly that this is not currently possible with rules_python 1.5.1? It is possible to use it but the symbol needs to...
It's OK to keep the existing name and we can close the issue when a PR exposing the rule is done. This should involve some sort of extra documentation teaching...
I think this is working as intended. If the `allow_fail` is not there then we would not be able to handle `extra_index_urls`. Maybe we should set it to `allow_fail =...
Please read our docs.
Thanks for providing a patch! We are about to cut a release, so maybe we should wait until after the release branch is created. Could you add some extra explanation...
It would be nice to add some integration tests which would make the change more explanatory and avoid us running into the problem later.
Could you please share your repo so that I can look at the repro please?
I am not sure if you should include the `coverage` dependency in the test - the toolchain will include it automatically if you specify the extra flag when configuring it...
Ah, is it not the case that you need to install `gcov` on your host to be able to run the `bazel coverage` command? `rules_python` is not doing anything here...