This page describes scope delegation. It assumes you’ve read and understood the previous pages, build definition and scopes.
Now that we’ve covered all the details of scoping, we can explain the .value
lookup in detail. It’s ok to skip this section if this is your first time reading this page.
To summarize what we’ve learned so far:
Zero
for any of the scope axes.
ThisBuild
for the subprojects axis only.
Test
extends Runtime
, and Runtime
extends Compile
configuration.
${current subproject} / Zero / Zero
by default.
/
operator.
Now let’s suppose we have the following build definition:
lazy val foo = settingKey[Int]("")
lazy val bar = settingKey[Int]("")
lazy val projX = (project in file("x"))
.settings(
foo := {
(Test / bar).value + 1
},
Compile / bar := 1
)
Inside of foo
’s setting body a dependency on the scoped key Test / bar
is declared.
However, despite Test / bar
being undefined in projX
,
sbt is still able to resolve Test / bar
to another scoped key,
resulting in foo
initialized as 2
.
sbt has a well-defined fallback search path called scope delegation. This feature allows you to set a value once in a more general scope, allowing multiple more-specific scopes to inherit the value.
Here are the rules for scope delegation:
Zero
, which is non-task scoped version of the scope.
Zero
(same as unscoped configuration axis).
ThisBuild
, and then Zero
.
We will look at each rule in the rest of this page.
In other words, given two scope candidates, if one has more specific value on the subproject axis, it will always win regardless of the configuration or the task scoping. Similarly, if subprojects are the same, one with more specific configuration value will always win regardless of the task scoping. We will see more rules to define more specific.
Zero
, which is non-task scoped version of the scope.
Here we have a concrete rule for how sbt will generate delegate scopes given a key.
Remember, we are trying to show the search path given an arbitrary (xxx / yyy).value
.
Exercise A: Given the following build definition:
lazy val projA = (project in file("a"))
.settings(
name := {
"foo-" + (packageBin / scalaVersion).value
},
scalaVersion := "2.11.11"
)
What is the value of projA / name
?
"foo-2.11.11"
"foo-2.12.18"
The answer is "foo-2.11.11"
.
Inside of .settings(...)
, scalaVersion
is automatically scoped to projA / Zero / Zero
,
so packageBin / scalaVersion
becomes projA / Zero / packageBin / scalaVersion
.
That particular scoped key is undefined.
By using Rule 2, sbt will substitute the task axis to Zero
as projA / Zero / Zero
(or projA / scalaVersion
).
That scoped key is defined to be "2.11.11"
.
Zero
(same as unscoped configuration axis).
The example for that is projX
that we saw earlier:
lazy val foo = settingKey[Int]("")
lazy val bar = settingKey[Int]("")
lazy val projX = (project in file("x"))
.settings(
foo := {
(Test / bar).value + 1
},
Compile / bar := 1
)
If we write out the full scope again, it’s projX / Test / Zero
.
Also recall that Test
extends Runtime
, and Runtime
extends Compile
.
Test / bar
is undefined, but due to Rule 3 sbt will look for
bar
scoped in projX / Test / Zero
, projX / Runtime / Zero
, and then
projX / Compile / Zero
. The last one is found, which is Compile / bar
.
ThisBuild
, and then Zero
.
Exercise B: Given the following build definition:
ThisBuild / organization := "com.example"
lazy val projB = (project in file("b"))
.settings(
name := "abc-" + organization.value,
organization := "org.tempuri"
)
What is the value of projB / name
?
"abc-com.example"
"abc-org.tempuri"
The answer is abc-org.tempuri
.
So based on Rule 4, the first search path is organization
scoped to projB / Zero / Zero
,
which is defined in projB
as "org.tempuri"
.
This has higher precedence than the build-level setting ThisBuild / organization
.
Exercise C: Given the following build definition:
ThisBuild / packageBin / scalaVersion := "2.12.2"
lazy val projC = (project in file("c"))
.settings(
name := {
"foo-" + (packageBin / scalaVersion).value
},
scalaVersion := "2.11.11"
)
What is value of projC / name
?
"foo-2.12.2"
"foo-2.11.11"
The answer is foo-2.11.11
.
scalaVersion
scoped to projC / Zero / packageBin
is undefined.
Rule 2 finds projC / Zero / Zero
. Rule 4 finds ThisBuild / Zero / packageBin
.
In this case Rule 1 dictates that more specific value on the subproject axis wins,
which is projC / Zero / Zero
that is defined to "2.11.11"
.
Exercise D: Given the following build definition:
ThisBuild / scalacOptions += "-Ywarn-unused-import"
lazy val projD = (project in file("d"))
.settings(
test := {
println((Compile / console / scalacOptions).value)
},
console / scalacOptions -= "-Ywarn-unused-import",
Compile / scalacOptions := scalacOptions.value // added by sbt
)
What would you see if you ran projD/test
?
List()
List(-Ywarn-unused-import)
The answer is List(-Ywarn-unused-import)
.
Rule 2 finds projD / Compile / Zero
,
Rule 3 finds projD / Zero / console
,
and Rule 4 finds ThisBuild / Zero / Zero
.
Rule 1 selects projD / Compile / Zero
because it has the subproject axis projD
, and the configuration axis has higher
precedence over the task axis.
Next, Compile / scalacOptions
refers to scalacOptions.value
,
we next need to find a delegate for projD / Zero / Zero
.
Rule 4 finds ThisBuild / Zero / Zero
and thus it resolves to List(-Ywarn-unused-import)
.
You might want to look up quickly what is going on.
This is where inspect
can be used.
sbt:projd> inspect projD / Compile / console / scalacOptions
[info] Task: scala.collection.Seq[java.lang.String]
[info] Description:
[info] Options for the Scala compiler.
[info] Provided by:
[info] ProjectRef(uri("file:/tmp/projd/"), "projD") / Compile / scalacOptions
[info] Defined at:
[info] /tmp/projd/build.sbt:9
[info] Reverse dependencies:
[info] projD / test
[info] projD / Compile / console
[info] Delegates:
[info] projD / Compile / console / scalacOptions
[info] projD / Compile / scalacOptions
[info] projD / console / scalacOptions
[info] projD / scalacOptions
[info] ThisBuild / Compile / console / scalacOptions
[info] ThisBuild / Compile / scalacOptions
[info] ThisBuild / console / scalacOptions
[info] ThisBuild / scalacOptions
[info] Zero / Compile / console / scalacOptions
[info] Zero / Compile / scalacOptions
[info] Zero / console / scalacOptions
[info] Global / scalacOptions
Note how “Provided by” shows that projD / Compile / console / scalacOptions
is provided by projD / Compile / scalacOptions
.
Also under “Delegates”, all of the possible delegate candidates
listed in the order of precedence!
projD
scoping on the subproject axis are listed first,
then ThisBuild
, and Zero
.
Compile
scoping on the configuration axis
are listed first, then falls back to Zero
.
console /
and the one without.
Note that scope delegation feels similar to class inheritance in an object-oriented language,
but there’s a difference. In an OO language like Scala if there’s a method named
drawShape
on a trait Shape
, its subclasses can override the behavior even when drawShape
is used
by other methods in the Shape
trait, which is called dynamic dispatch.
In sbt, however, scope delegation can delegate a scope to a more general scope, like a project-level setting to a build-level settings, but that build-level setting cannot refer to the project-level setting.
Exercise E: Given the following build definition:
lazy val root = (project in file("."))
.settings(
inThisBuild(List(
organization := "com.example",
scalaVersion := "2.12.2",
version := scalaVersion.value + "_0.1.0"
)),
name := "Hello"
)
lazy val projE = (project in file("e"))
.settings(
scalaVersion := "2.11.11"
)
What will projE / version
return?
"2.12.2_0.1.0"
"2.11.11_0.1.0"
The answer is 2.12.2_0.1.0
.
projE / version
delegates to ThisBuild / version
,
which depends on ThisBuild / scalaVersion
.
Because of this reason, build level setting should be limited mostly to simple value assignments.
Exercise F: Given the following build definition:
ThisBuild / scalacOptions += "-D0"
scalacOptions += "-D1"
lazy val projF = (project in file("f"))
.settings(
compile / scalacOptions += "-D2",
Compile / scalacOptions += "-D3",
Compile / compile / scalacOptions += "-D4",
test := {
println("bippy" + (Compile / compile / scalacOptions).value.mkString)
}
)
What will projF / test
show?
"bippy-D4"
"bippy-D2-D4"
"bippy-D0-D3-D4"
The answer is "bippy-D0-D3-D4"
. This is a variation of an exercise
originally created by Paul Phillips.
It’s a great demonstration of all the rules because someKey += "x"
expands to
someKey := {
val old = someKey.value
old :+ "x"
}
Retrieving the old value would cause delegation, and due to Rule 5,
it will go to another scoped key.
Let’s get rid of +=
first, and annotate the delegates for old values:
ThisBuild / scalacOptions := {
// Global / scalacOptions <- Rule 4
val old = (ThisBuild / scalacOptions).value
old :+ "-D0"
}
scalacOptions := {
// ThisBuild / scalacOptions <- Rule 4
val old = scalacOptions.value
old :+ "-D1"
}
lazy val projF = (project in file("f"))
.settings(
compile / scalacOptions := {
// ThisBuild / scalacOptions <- Rules 2 and 4
val old = (compile / scalacOptions).value
old :+ "-D2"
},
Compile / scalacOptions := {
// ThisBuild / scalacOptions <- Rules 3 and 4
val old = (Compile / scalacOptions).value
old :+ "-D3"
},
Compile / compile / scalacOptions := {
// projF / Compile / scalacOptions <- Rules 1 and 2
val old = (Compile / compile / scalacOptions).value
old :+ "-D4"
},
test := {
println("bippy" + (Compile / compile / scalacOptions).value.mkString)
}
)
This becomes:
ThisBuild / scalacOptions := {
Nil :+ "-D0"
}
scalacOptions := {
List("-D0") :+ "-D1"
}
lazy val projF = (project in file("f"))
.settings(
compile / scalacOptions := List("-D0") :+ "-D2",
Compile / scalacOptions := List("-D0") :+ "-D3",
Compile / compile / scalacOptions := List("-D0", "-D3") :+ "-D4",
test := {
println("bippy" + (Compile / compile / scalacOptions).value.mkString)
}
)