One of Bazel's long-term goals is to make $ bazel build //:all "just work" so that every target builds "the right way", for whatever platform(s) you care about, using only flags that are genuinely interesting to you. This two-part series discusses the challenges involved and steps we're taking to get there.

This is a deeper dive into themes covered in Bazel's configurability roadmap.

Motivation

The larger your project gets, the more likely you are to have to build it different ways.

Maybe you need Android, iOS, and desktop versions of your app. Maybe you build C++ for different platforms. Or maybe you maintain a popular JavaScript library that users only want specific modules from.

These are examples of configuration: the process of building the same code with different settings to customize it for specific needs. In Bazel-speak, this means building a target with a set of flags:

$ bazel build //my:cc_binary --cpu = x86 $ bazel build //my:cc_binary --cpu = arm $ bazel build //my:android_binary --android_sdk = @androidsdk//:sdk-28

Bazel's configurability work is an ongoing effort to make these tasks simple, flexible, and powerful.

The Problem

Bazel is a powerful build tool that's especially suited for large codebases with multiple languages. But it was originally created for Google engineers writing code for fleets of identical Linux servers with little need for customization. What customization was needed was achieved with ad hoc flags and logic built straight into the tool.

This is no longer true inside or outside of Google. Modern software runs on phones, cloud, servers, desktops, smart devices and more, and must offer increasingly flexible support for any combination of these platforms.

This means

$ bazel build //my:binary

isn't enough to describe what you want to do. What platforms are you targeting? What features do you want to include? What if you want to build a complex app with generated sources, client and server modules, native extensions, and test data?

Bazel's historical approach is to use ad hoc flags:

$ bazel build //my:binary --cpu=arm --crosstool_top=//my:custom_toolchain --define MYFEATURE=1

This approach has deep limitations:

--cpu only accepts values explicitly supported by C++ rules. Even if you're not building C++. --crosstool_top , which specifies exactly what command line should compile your code, is even more tied to C++. Other languages may be organized completely differently. --define is completely unstructured and unreadable in Starlark. $ bazel build //my:all sets the same flags for all targets, even if different targets need different flags. //my:binary 's deps must use the same settings as their parent. It might be hard to remember which flags are needed by which targets, especially across users and dev/test/prod machines. This makes it hard to be confident in the integrity of your builds.

Our work is redesigning Bazel around a better approach: set flags directly in targets that need them, let rule writers design the flags that affect their rules, and provide standard APIs for cross-language concepts like platform and cpu. This lets developers configure projects on their own terms, using language consistent with how their projects are organized.

Configuration vs. Attributes

Rules have always had attributes, which also affect how they build. So why do we even need configuration?

The difference between configuration and attributes is attributes only affect the rule's direct build actions. This means attributes cannot affect how a rule's dependencies build.

For example, C++ rules have an attribute named copts that sets custom C++ compile options. cc_binary(name = "mybinary", srcs = ["mybinary.cc"], deps = [":mylibrary"], copts = ["-DUSE_EXPERIMENTAL_FEATURES=1"]) might compile mybinary.cc with experimental features. But this won't happen for ":mylibrary" unless it sets its copts similarly. This makes attributes unsuitable for tasks like building a binary for a different CPU.

If you imagine a build as a graph with parents above their dependencies, attributes change behavior up the graph while configuration changes behavior down the graph.

Platforms

One of our team's major goals is designing a principled API for defining platforms and toolchains.

While there are many kinds of "ways" you might want to build your project, in practice most developers want the flexibility to target different devices, OSes, CPUs, and other machine properties. The general term for this is platforms. Being able to reason about how your code interacts with platforms is the basis of multi-platform software.

Toolchains are the set of programs that build your code. A C++ toolchain includes a compiler and linker and the flags that invoke them "correctly". Different platforms require different toolchains. gcc might be the compiler of choice for Linux while Xcode is used on the Mac. Even the same platform might use different toolchains. For example, maybe you want to use an experimental compiler.

Not only are these concepts cross-language, but it's important that languages treat them consistently. Otherwise you get an uncoordinated mess of language-specific code that makes it hard to combine different languages in a single project.

One of the reasons

$ bazel build //my:binary --cpu=arm --crosstool_top=//my:custom_toolchain --define MYFEATURE=1

doesn't work well is that --cpu and --crosstool_top are C++-specific. What if you want to build Java libraries with C++ dependencies for both Linux and Android? This impacts not just C++, but also the JDK and maybe even which support libraries you need.

Not only are --cpu and -crosstool_top insufficiently expressive, but they might actively sabotage you. Consider the following use of select:

config_setting ( name = "android" , values = { "cpu" : "arm" , "crosstool_top" : "//my:android_toolchain" }) java_library ( name = "supporting_library" , deps = select ({ ":android" : [ ":extra_required_android_deps" ], "//conditions:default" : [] }))

If you use --cpu and crosstool_top to define what ":android" means, what happens when an app supports a new Android phone with a different CPU? ":android" won't trigger because --cpu no longer matches, the app won't get required Android support libraries, and it will break.

A Better Way

The configurability's team's platform work, led by @katre, lets you declare exactly what you want in a way all rules understand. It doesn't even matter if no one's ever heard of your platform.

With the new API, our example can be rewritten as:

$ cat platforms / BUILD constraint_setting ( name = "os" ) constraint_value ( name = "android" , constraint_setting = ":os" ) constraint_value ( name = "linux" , constraint_setting = ":os" ) constraint_setting ( name = "device" ) constraint_value ( name = "phone" , constraint_setting = ":device" ) constraint_value ( name = "tablet" , constraint_setting = ":device" ) platform ( name = "pixel3" , constraint_values = [ ":android" , ":phone" ])

$ cat helpers / BUILD config_setting ( name = "android" , constraint_values = [ "//platforms:android" ]) java_library ( name = "supporting_library" , deps = select ({ ":android" : [ ":extra_required_android_deps" ], "//conditions:default" : [] }))

and built with:

$ bazel build //my:binary --platforms=//platforms:pixel3 --define MYFEATURE=1

This is a significant improvement from before. It's more concise and you no longer have to care what the CPU is. Any platform with the constraint_value ":android" is an Android platform. So it's easy to express exactly what you want and have select , rules, and toolchains understand it the same way. MYFEATURE=1 , which isn't a platform property, remains as before.

Rules understand ":android" by declaring toolchain types. For example, java_binary can be defined in Starlark as

java_binary = rule ( ... , toolchains = [ "@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type" ])

This tells Bazel that java_binary understands toolchains that set ["@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type"] . You can then write a Java toolchain for Android as:

toolchain ( name = "android_jdk" , toolchain_type = [ "@bazel_tools//tools/jdk:toolchain_type" ], target_compatible_with = [ "//platforms:android" ], toolchain = ":android_jdk_provider_rule" )

where android_jdk_provider_rule is a Starlark rule that provides access to the actual JDK tools.

This takes some infrastructure to set up, but the result is magic. Call your build with --platforms=//platforms:pixel3 and java_binary automatically uses ":android_jdk" . All rules can join in on this. The only obligations rule designers have are to write Starlark rules describing how their toolchains work and define toolchains for the platforms they support.

This brings us closer to the goal of $ bazel build //:all just working by replacing ad hoc language-specific flags with a single flag that works everywhere.

Status

You can use Bazel's new platform API today. The catch is that rules have to opt in support by including definitions of how their toolchains work. If you're designing a new set of rules, you should design them for platforms. But most existing rules predate this work and still rely on legacy flags like --javabase .

As of this post, Bazel's platform work is heavily focused on rules migration. C++ rules are almost ready and due to be officially integrated mid-2019. Java and Python rules will follow soon after (follow the relevant tracking bugs for best estimates). These will be important milestones in demonstrating this work's value and providing best practice examples for others.

--cpu , --crosstool_top and other legacy flags will eventually be removed from Bazel. Since rules are migrating on different timelines and projects still use these flags for select and command lines, an interoperability phase will keep them working as long as you need.

For more details, see Bazel's platforms roadmap, configurability roadmap, platform and toolchain docs, and the original design doc. Or contact the team at bazel-discuss@googlegroups.com.

Special thanks to @katre for leading Bazel's platform vision and @hlopko and @lberki for important C++ contributions.

Part 2...

Stay tuned for Configurable Builds - Part 2, coming out soon. We'll talk about building different targets with different settings through transitions. We'll also discuss why you need to watch your build size when using these features.