Remove package check for embed #1682
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information. For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request. |
ninjadq
force-pushed
the
remove_embed_package_check
branch
from
30a14aa
to
8844f54
Compare
These check will ignore a valid scenario mentioned in bazelbuild#1681 Signed-off-by: Qian Deng <dengqian0826@gmail.com>
ninjadq
force-pushed
the
remove_embed_package_check
branch
from
8844f54
to
eab4a59
Compare
|
This PR just an example to show the root cause |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
These check will ignore a valid scenario mentioned in #1681
What type of PR is this?
Bug fix
What package or component does this PR mostly affect?
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
The package check will ignore some valid situation that the embedded file located in sub dir of go code
Which issues(s) does this PR fix?
Fixes #1681
Other notes for review