Remove target constraint #3879
Merged
Remove target constraint #3879
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Because `rules_js` 3.x started consuming the runtime toolchain, this constraint is no longer needed. It is in fact problematic now because it prevents building multi-platform images. See: bazel-contrib#3854 aspect-build/rules_js#2499
guw
requested review from
alexeagle,
gregmagolan,
jbedard and
mattem
as code owners
|
dzbarsky
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2025
fmeum
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Because
rules_js3.x started consuming the runtime toolchain, this constraint is no longer needed. It is in fact problematic now because it prevents building multi-platform images.See:
#3854
aspect-build/rules_js#2499
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: #3854
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Slack: https://bazelbuild.slack.com/archives/CEZUUKQ6P/p1763167547013579