|
Download OpenROAD/docs/user/Bazel-developer-activities.md from SAIFIINDUSTRIES/verilog_data-1: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 7.84 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/SAIFIINDUSTRIES/verilog_data-1/resolve/main/OpenROAD/docs/user/Bazel-developer-activities.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/SAIFIINDUSTRIES/verilog_data-1/OpenROAD/docs/user/Bazel-developer-activities.md
-
curl -L -o Bazel-developer-activities.md https://huggingface.co/datasets/SAIFIINDUSTRIES/verilog_data-1/resolve/main/OpenROAD/docs/user/Bazel-developer-activities.md
7.84 kB
| # Bazel Developer Activities and `.bzl` Training Guide | |
| This guide maps common OpenROAD developer activities to Bazel workflows and provides practical training steps for reading and maintaining `.bzl` (Starlark) files. | |
| It is intended for contributors who already build and test OpenROAD, and want to become productive with Bazel internals and review-ready changes. | |
| ## Scope | |
| This document covers: | |
| - day-to-day developer activities | |
| - where to find relevant Bazel logic in the repository | |
| - how to approach `.bzl` and Starlark changes safely | |
| - minimal commands to verify changes locally before opening a PR | |
| For general Bazel usage (running tests, build configs, caching, ORFS details), see: | |
| - [Testing local changes with Bazel](Bazel.md) | |
| - [Bazel targets](Bazel-targets.md) | |
| - [Bazel Developer Guide: Caching](Bazel-caching.md) | |
| - [Handling breaking changes between OpenROAD and ORFS](Bazel-breaking-changes.md) | |
| --- | |
| ## Repository areas to know | |
| You will work mostly in: | |
| - `BUILD.bazel` / `BUILD` files: target declarations | |
| - `MODULE.bazel` and `MODULE.bazel.lock`: dependency/module management | |
| - `.bazelrc`: shared Bazel flags and configs | |
| - `bazel/*.bzl`: shared Starlark macros and helpers used across targets | |
| - `test/regression.bzl` and `test/orfs/**/*.bzl`: regression and ORFS-related Starlark logic | |
| Treat `.bzl` files as code: keep changes small, reviewable, and tested. | |
| --- | |
| ## Activity matrix (what developers do most often) | |
| ## 1) Modify C++/Tcl/Python code and run fast local checks | |
| Typical flow: | |
| 1. make code change | |
| 2. run focused tests in affected subtree | |
| 3. run broader checks before PR | |
| Examples: | |
| bazelisk test //src/<tool>/... | |
| When broad integration confidence is needed: | |
| bazelisk test //... | |
| Use narrow scope first; widen only as confidence increases. | |
| ## 2) Add or update a target in a `BUILD` file | |
| Common tasks: | |
| - add a new test target | |
| - add data dependencies | |
| - split/reuse libraries for better build graph hygiene | |
| Recommended process: | |
| 1. copy a nearby target pattern | |
| 2. keep visibility minimal | |
| 3. avoid over-exporting internals | |
| 4. run only the new/changed target first | |
| 5. then run subtree tests | |
| Example validation steps: | |
| bazelisk query 'kind(test, //src/<tool>/...)' | |
| bazelisk test //src/<tool>/test:<new_test_target> | |
| The test target name is derived from the test file name with a suffix added | |
| based on type: Tcl tests get `_tcl` and Python tests get `_py`. For example, | |
| `src/grt/test/fastroute.tcl` becomes target `fastroute_tcl`, so you would run: | |
| bazelisk test //src/grt/test:fastroute_tcl | |
| Use the `bazelisk query` command above to list all test targets and find the | |
| exact name for any test in the subtree. | |
| ## 3) Change shared build logic in `.bzl` | |
| This has wider blast radius than editing one `BUILD` file. | |
| Safe process: | |
| 1. isolate the macro/rule behavior you need to change | |
| 2. preserve backward-compatible call patterns where possible | |
| 3. test one direct consumer target first | |
| 4. test additional representative consumers | |
| 5. run a broader sweep before PR | |
| Suggested progression: | |
| - one directly affected target | |
| - one unrelated consumer (sanity against regressions) | |
| - affected subtree tests | |
| - optional full `src/...` or `...` based on change scope | |
| ## 4) Update ORFS/Bazel-ORFS coupling | |
| If your change touches integration boundaries: | |
| - verify OpenROAD side and ORFS assumptions together | |
| - use the documented ORFS debug/issue-generation workflow in `test/orfs/README.md` | |
| - run at least affected ORFS smoke tests before PR | |
| ## 5) Update Bazel module/dependency state | |
| When bumping module inputs: | |
| - prefer project-documented bump flow | |
| - review both `MODULE.bazel` and lock updates | |
| - keep diffs minimal and intentional | |
| - verify representative build/tests after update | |
| --- | |
| ## `.bzl` training path (practical, repo-oriented) | |
| ## Step 1: Read Starlark with intent | |
| When reading a `.bzl` file, identify: | |
| - exported symbols (macros/rules) used by `BUILD` files | |
| - inputs (attrs/kwargs) and defaults | |
| - what target(s) the macro expands into | |
| - implicit outputs, tags, and toolchain assumptions | |
| Focus first on call sites in nearby `BUILD` files. | |
| ## Step 2: Learn by tracing one macro end-to-end | |
| Pick one macro used in your area and trace: | |
| 1. `BUILD` call site | |
| 2. macro parameters and normalization | |
| 3. final native rules emitted | |
| 4. resulting target graph via query | |
| This builds intuition faster than reading Starlark in isolation. | |
| ## Step 3: Make no-op/refactor-safe edits first | |
| Before behavior changes, practice with small, review-safe edits: | |
| - variable naming cleanup | |
| - comments clarifying non-obvious behavior | |
| - extracting small helper functions without semantic changes | |
| Then run representative tests. This gives confidence in your local loop and reduces risk. | |
| ## Step 4: Introduce behavior changes behind clear conditions | |
| For real logic changes: | |
| - keep old path available when practical | |
| - gate new behavior with explicit kwargs or clear branch conditions | |
| - avoid hidden behavior changes to unrelated consumers | |
| ## Step 5: Validate like a maintainer | |
| For `.bzl` changes, do not stop at one passing target. | |
| Validate across: | |
| - direct consumer(s) | |
| - at least one unrelated consumer | |
| - broader subtree or project-level tests proportional to blast radius | |
| --- | |
| ## Code review checklist for Bazel / `.bzl` changes | |
| Before opening a PR, verify: | |
| - [ ] change is minimal and scoped to one intent | |
| - [ ] `BUILD`/`.bzl` naming is clear and consistent with nearby code | |
| - [ ] no accidental visibility broadening | |
| - [ ] test target selection matches changed area | |
| - [ ] representative tests passed locally | |
| - [ ] docs updated when behavior/workflow changed | |
| For larger `.bzl` changes, include a short “impact summary” in PR description: | |
| - what changed | |
| - who consumes it | |
| - what was tested | |
| --- | |
| ## Common pitfalls and how to avoid them | |
| - **Changing shared macros without representative tests** | |
| Always test more than one consumer. | |
| - **Overusing broad target patterns too early** | |
| Start narrow (`//src/<tool>/...`), then widen. | |
| - **Conflating host/target configs when debugging** | |
| Use guidance in [Bazel targets](Bazel-targets.md) and [Bazel.md](Bazel.md). | |
| - **Mixing unrelated cleanup with behavioral changes** | |
| Separate commits improve review quality and rollback safety. | |
| - **Unclear PR validation evidence** | |
| Include exact commands you ran and the scope they cover. | |
| --- | |
| ## Suggested onboarding exercises for new developers | |
| These are low-risk training tasks that build Bazel confidence: | |
| 1. run and list tests in a single tool subtree | |
| 2. add a tiny test target in a local branch and validate it | |
| 3. trace one `.bzl` macro from call site to emitted rules | |
| 4. make a non-functional clarity edit in `.bzl` and confirm no regressions | |
| 5. document your local validation commands in PR style | |
| --- | |
| ## Minimal verification template (copy/paste for PR notes) | |
| Use and adapt this in your PR description: | |
| Scope: | |
| - <what changed> | |
| Validation: | |
| - bazelisk test //src/<tool>/test:<specific_target> | |
| - bazelisk test //src/<tool>/... | |
| - bazelisk test //src/... | |
| Notes: | |
| - <any known limitations or follow-up work> | |
| Keep validation proportional to change scope. | |
| --- | |
| ## When to ask for help | |
| Ask early if: | |
| - you are unsure whether a `.bzl` macro is shared across many consumers | |
| - a change requires module/toolchain decisions beyond local context | |
| - target/config behavior is surprising across `build` vs `test` | |
| A short design note in the PR discussion is better than a large speculative change. | |
| --- | |
| ## Summary | |
| For OpenROAD Bazel work, reliability comes from: | |
| - small scoped edits | |
| - understanding call site → macro → emitted rule flow | |
| - representative validation across consumers | |
| - explicit, reproducible test evidence in PRs | |
| If you follow this workflow, your `.bzl` and Bazel changes are much more likely to be easy to review and safe to merge. | |