Skip to content

Build Go servers with Bazel remote execution - #1940

Open
hugosantos wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature-20260830-bazel-remote-go-builds
Open

Build Go servers with Bazel remote execution#1940
hugosantos wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature-20260830-bazel-remote-go-builds

Conversation

@hugosantos

@hugosantos hugosantos commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Add an opt-in Bazel Remote Execution API backend for Go server builds.
  • Provision the tenant's Bazel cluster directly, including mTLS credentials and Remote Asset API access, without requiring a local bazelrc.
  • Reuse uploaded workspaces, Go SDKs, action results, and CAS content across builds.
  • Upload remote-built OCI layer blobs from RE workers while publishing image configs, manifests, and tags from the client.

Motivation

Go server builds currently repeat local compilation and image-layer work. Executing those operations through the shared Bazel cluster allows separate builds to reuse the same operations and CAS data.

Validation

  • go test ./internal/sdk/host ./internal/sdk/golang ./internal/integrations/bazelremote ./internal/integrations/golang ./internal/artifacts/oci ./internal/cli/cmd/cluster
  • go build -o /tmp/nsdev ./cmd/nsdev
  • nsdev build global/server/iam --golang_use_bazel_remote
  • Repeated the IAM build in a fresh process; the cached build completed in 13 seconds.

@hugosantos hugosantos changed the title Build-Go-servers-with-Bazel-remote-execution Build Go servers with Bazel remote execution Aug 31, 2026
@hugosantos
hugosantos force-pushed the feature-20260830-bazel-remote-go-builds branch 2 times, most recently from 6c86aaf to bad6ab2 Compare August 31, 2026 19:23
@hugosantos
hugosantos force-pushed the feature-20260830-bazel-remote-go-builds branch from bad6ab2 to fabe67b Compare August 31, 2026 19:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant