Skip to content

Update cel-cpp to v0.11.0 #86

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 16, 2025
Merged

Update cel-cpp to v0.11.0 #86

merged 5 commits into from
Apr 16, 2025

Conversation

jchadwick-buf
Copy link
Member

This is a bit complicated because cel-cpp v0.11.0 breaks WORKSPACE support a little bit, but thankfully the API we're using has remained relatively stable. Patches have been rebased, I'm pretty confident that I'll need to loop around to the MSVC patch to make sure it still works but the field access patch seems to be working first-try so knock-on-wood. The CMakeLists will need to be audited because I'm sure there's now stuff in it that should be removed, but let's focus on getting a working build first. We can focus on making the CMakeLists as accurate as possible when we're closer to being able to upstream it.

Although cel-cpp now compiles with bzlmod, it has yet to be added to the BCR, so we might not be able to use it with bzlmod ourselves yet. (I'll be sure to double-check this, but I want to keep this PR clean.) Another follow-up item would be to use the strings.format implementation provided by cel-cpp v0.11.0, but it will probably be according to the new spec, so that is pending on a protovalidate release with the updated tests.

Draft until we're passing in CI. I anticipate problems across platforms.

This is a bit complicated because cel-cpp v0.11.0 breaks WORKSPACE support a little bit, but thankfully the API we're using has remained relatively stable. Patches have been rebased, I'm pretty confident that I'll need to loop around to the MSVC patch to make sure it still works but the field access patch seems to be working first-try so knock-on-wood. The CMakeLists will need to be audited because I'm sure there's now stuff in it that should be removed, but let's focus on getting a working build first. We can focus on making the CMakeLists as accurate as possible when we're closer to being able to upstream it.
@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf marked this pull request as ready for review April 16, 2025 13:05
@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf requested a review from Alfus April 16, 2025 13:06
@Alfus
Copy link
Collaborator

Alfus commented Apr 16, 2025

let me know of you need any more changes to cel-cpp to get bzl working.

@jchadwick-buf
Copy link
Member Author

no huge issues, but i should probably start submitting some upstream patches for next release

@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf merged commit 535c29f into main Apr 16, 2025
8 checks passed
@jchadwick-buf jchadwick-buf deleted the jchadwick/cel-cpp-0.11 branch April 16, 2025 19:52
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