Open vakhidbetrakhmadov opened 2 weeks ago
@fmeum Do you know a way to forward providers in a transition without them being public? Ideally we wouldn't have to make the change that #2559 is proposing.
I don't think that's possible at the moment. There's been some discussion about introducing a way to forward all but a select few providers, but the last time that came up was a year ago.
Hello,
I need to apply a transition on a target defined by
ios_extension
rule.I have the following setup:
App
,Extension
.Module_C
is the largest module.In order to reduce
App
size, i would like to flavourModule_C
forExtension
.In order to flavour
Module_C
forExtension
i need to propagate a custom build setting along theExtension -> ...
dependency tree.I have done some research and it looks like that at the moment there is no supported way of applying a transition on a target defined by a third party rule.
The most commonly proposed workaround that i found is to create a wrapper rule around the third party rule. The wrapper rule can apply required transitions on the wrapped rule and propagate its providers.
I have pretty much done this with
ios_extension
, but there is an issue that i am facing.The issue is that not all
ios_extension
's providers are accessible from outside ofrules_apple
, and without for exampleAppleDebugInfo
no dSYMs forExtension
are generated, or without_AppleSymbolsFileInfo
no.symbols
forExtension
are generated.I didn't find any difference in the output with/without
_AppleCodesigningDossierInfo
,AppleExtensionSafeValidationInfo
,_AppleSwiftDylibsInfo
.