Fabian Meumertzheim

> Sure! Is there anything I could do for you in the meantime? It would definitely help if anyone could solve: > One issue right now is it seems though...

Update: I submitted https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_go/pull/3789 to extract nogo facts into separate files. I will look into clearing further blockers for the separation of nogo into a separate action.

This should be fixed with latest rules_go and Bazel 7.1.2. Please give it a try. Edit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjA7-M5njkI1F38IC0pm305S9EOmxcUwaCIvaSmansg/edit

@ramenjosh To be honest, I have no idea what is causing that failure. Could you amend and force-push your branch to trigger a new CI run? It may just be...

Sure, I can review this if someone can resolve the conflicts. The flaky tests should be gone now.

> @fmeum I would really appreciate your help here. Thanks in advance! Sorry for the delay, I do really appreciate your work on this. I can't promise that I will...

Would you be interested in contributing this feature? We probably just need to populate `x_defs` in the implementation of `go_test`.

We would welcome a contribution for this. It could probably go into the template used in https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_go/blob/master/go/tools/builders/generate_test_main.go.

This would be a pretty good addition. I like the consistency with `go_deps.from_file`. If `toolchain` isn't specified, should we fall back to using the version in the `go` line? How...

This would be a very welcome contribution. I can review PRs and offer support. I haven't worked with `proto_common` yet, but I would assume that https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/main/python/private/proto/py_proto_library.bzl is a good starting...