Add support for %bazel.version*% variables in bazelrc imports

[willstranton]

Follows the proposal:
#24043 (comment) by mattyclarkson@ to add support for the following variables when importing additional bazelrc files:

• %bazel.version%
• %bazel.version.major%
• %bazel.version.minor%
• %bazel.version.patch%

Eg. If your bazel version was 8.4.2 and your .bazelrc had the following:

try-import %bazel.version%.bazelrc
import %bazel.version.major%.%bazel.version.minor%-%bazel.version.patch%.bazelrc
try-import %bazel.version.major%.bazelrc

It would be evaluated to:

try-import 8.4.2.bazelrc
import 8.4-2.bazelrc
try-import 8.bazelrc

Implementation details:

Build label extraction:

Before: The build label was extracted out only when calling bazel --version and when running in client server mode.

After: Now we always extract the the build label out early in the start of main

Piping of build label:

The build label is stored in the OptionProcessor so that it can be passed to RcFile when parsing occurs.

Parsing and mapping of variables:

The build label is parsed during RcFile::ParseFile into its constituent parts (major, minor, patch). This occurs EACH TIME an import statement is found in a .rc file. This is wasteful, but the logic is simple enough that it shouldn't matter. Interpolation of the build label happens first, followed by %workspace%.

Fixes: #24043

[brentleyjones]

Does %bazel.version.minor% returning 4 instead of 8.4 make sense? Would anyone ever need that over just having these four?

• %bazel.version.major%: 8
• %bazel.version.minor%: 8.4
• %bazel.version.patch%: 8.4.3
• %bazel.version%: 8.4.3rc2

[willstranton]

Re: %bazel.version.minor% returning 4 instead of 8.4

Note: Even though I put out a patch for this, I have little stake in this since I don't plan on using this feature. I'm happy to go with whatever the community decides (or what the official bazel maintainers decide). Here are some thoughts:

I put a small example in the commit message for just returning the individual number with the import 8.4-2.bazelrc filename. This doesn't follow the standard #.#.# format and has a dash for the last number instead. Having each part be its own value provides more flexibility in how they want to name the .bazelrc. They could have 8-4-2.bazelrc, 8_4_2.bazelrc. Is that a realistic use case? Maybe - I don't know.

I do see your point on how unlikely it is to need just the patch number by itself. To update your naming:

• %bazel.version.major%: 8 (unchanged)
• %bazel.version.minor% -> %bazel.version.major.minor% -> 8.4
• %bazel.version.patch% -> %bazel.version.major.minor.patch% -> 8.4.3
• %bazel.version%: 8.4.3rc2

So in total, still only 4 variables, but more verbose names to be clearer what it evaluates to.

---

Also, wanted to clarify in your example, because you have %bazel.version% evaluate to 8.4.3rc2, but the %bazel.version.patch% was only 8.4.3 - it should be 8.4.3rc2 right? The current patch treats everything after the second dot as the patch number. If we're going to try to go full semantic versioning, then I should fix that and follow https://semver.org/#backusnaur-form-grammar-for-valid-semver-versions and treat the rc2 as the <prerelease> or <build> number.

[willstranton]

Sorry, I feel like I'm bikeshedding when talking about <prerelease>/<build> numbers. Let's ignore that and focus on getting variables for what semver.org refers to as <version core>, which are just the major minor and patch numbers and <valid semver>, the full build label. For 8.4.3rc2, the rc2 should not be a part of any of the current patch variable name candidates: %bazel.version.patch%, %bazel.version.major.minor.patch%.

[willstranton]

Updated the code. This now does proper semantic version processing instead of the naive split by dots I was doing earlier.

re: variables available - In the spirit of why not both, I just implemented the original proposal and the variant of your new proposal that I mentioned in the previous comment. So for the build label: 9.4.2-pre.20251022.1 the variables available and their values are:

• %bazel.version%: 9.4.2-pre.20251022.1
• %bazel.version.major%: 9
• %bazel.version.minor%: 4
• %bazel.version.patch%: 2
• %bazel.version.prerelease%: pre.20251022.1
• %bazel.version.buildmetadata%: (empty)
• %bazel.version.major.minor%: 9.4
• %bazel.version.major.minor.patch%: 9.4.2

I think this should handle all cases that a user would want with enough flexibility, clarity, and convenience baked in.

[fmeum]

I would suggest limiting this to just two variables, returning 8 and 8.4 respectively for Bazel version 8.4.2rc2. There's pretty much never a reason to use anything but the latest patch version for a given minor version anyway.

Every new variable becomes a public API surface that users will end up (possibly inadvertently) depending on, so there should be at least some potential use case for each variable we add.

[willstranton]

Ok, reduce the possible variables to just two:

• %bazel.version.major% - 8 in 8.4.2
• %bazel.version.major.minor% - 8.4 in 8.4.2

[brentleyjones]

Can you also update the PR description with this change?