The bzlmod module extension reconstructs override_targets from the four split override_target_* attributes using the keys "build_script" and "proc_macro":
https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/crate_universe/extensions.bzl (search for override_target_build_script)
replacement = annotation_dict.pop("override_target_proc_macro")
if replacement:
annotation_dict["override_targets"]["proc_macro"] = str(replacement)
replacement = annotation_dict.pop("override_target_build_script")
if replacement:
annotation_dict["override_targets"]["build_script"] = str(replacement)
But rendering looks the rule up by its cargo-metadata Target.kind via override_target_key(), which returns "proc-macro" and "custom-build":
https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/crate_universe/src/context/crate_context.rs (override_target_key)
pub(crate) fn override_target_key(&self) -> &'static str {
match self {
Self::Library(..) => "lib",
Self::ProcMacro(..) => "proc-macro",
Self::Binary(..) => "bin",
Self::BuildScript(..) => "custom-build",
}
}
"lib" and "bin" agree in both spellings, so those overrides work. "build_script" and "proc_macro" never match, so under bzlmod override_target_build_script and override_target_proc_macro are silently ignored: the generated BUILD keeps its own cargo_build_script instead of emitting the alias to the override label. No error or warning is produced.
The non-bzlmod crate.annotation(override_targets = ...) documents the kind-style vocabulary ("Keys can be proc-macro, custom-build, lib, bin" in crate_universe/private/crate.bzl), which is presumably why this went unnoticed: WORKSPACE users pass the dict directly with the correct keys.
Repro: annotate any crate that has a build script with override_target_build_script = "//some:target" under bzlmod, repin, and inspect the generated BUILD: it still contains the generated cargo_build_script rather than an alias to //some:target.
Fix: align the two keys in extensions.bzl with the documented vocabulary:
- annotation_dict["override_targets"]["proc_macro"] = str(replacement)
+ annotation_dict["override_targets"]["proc-macro"] = str(replacement)
...
- annotation_dict["override_targets"]["build_script"] = str(replacement)
+ annotation_dict["override_targets"]["custom-build"] = str(replacement)
We are running with exactly this two-line patch applied to 0.70.0 and override_target_build_script works as documented with it.
The bzlmod module extension reconstructs
override_targetsfrom the four splitoverride_target_*attributes using the keys"build_script"and"proc_macro":https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/crate_universe/extensions.bzl (search for
override_target_build_script)But rendering looks the rule up by its cargo-metadata
Target.kindviaoverride_target_key(), which returns"proc-macro"and"custom-build":https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/crate_universe/src/context/crate_context.rs (
override_target_key)"lib"and"bin"agree in both spellings, so those overrides work."build_script"and"proc_macro"never match, so under bzlmodoverride_target_build_scriptandoverride_target_proc_macroare silently ignored: the generated BUILD keeps its owncargo_build_scriptinstead of emitting the alias to the override label. No error or warning is produced.The non-bzlmod
crate.annotation(override_targets = ...)documents the kind-style vocabulary ("Keys can beproc-macro,custom-build,lib,bin" incrate_universe/private/crate.bzl), which is presumably why this went unnoticed: WORKSPACE users pass the dict directly with the correct keys.Repro: annotate any crate that has a build script with
override_target_build_script = "//some:target"under bzlmod, repin, and inspect the generated BUILD: it still contains the generatedcargo_build_scriptrather than an alias to//some:target.Fix: align the two keys in
extensions.bzlwith the documented vocabulary:We are running with exactly this two-line patch applied to 0.70.0 and
override_target_build_scriptworks as documented with it.