I'm going to hold off reviewing this one until the other one is merged and the diff gets a lot simpler. Please ping if you don't see a review shortly after the other one merges

Thanks for the PR. I am also looking to adopt this functionality. As I am testing locally, I noticed that usage isn't supported. Here's an example of go_test where the arguments need to be passed into test_setup.sh upon invoking. With this diff, the arguments are not being passed in during runtime while I run bazel test :cross_plan_test

go_test(
    name = "plan_test",
    srcs = [
        "controller_test.go",
    ],
    args = [
        "-kubebuilder_assets_dir",
        "$(rootpaths //bazel:kubebuilder_assets)",
    ],
    data = [
        "//bazel:kubebuilder_assets",
    ],
)

go_cross_test(
      name = "cross_plan_test",
      target = ":plan_test"
)

@tingilee args is a magic attribute, its value currently can't be propagated to targets depending on a test. This needs to be fixed in Bazel first, see bazelbuild/bazel#16076.

@JamesMBartlett Any updates to this diff? We would like to incorporate this as part of our monorepo.

@tingilee I don't think the necessary changes have landed in bazel yet. And I think given the fact it will ignore env and args from the test target, it will probably cause some confusion if landed in its current state.
But if the maintainers are happy landing it without support for env and args, then I can rebase and bring this branch up to date.

@fmeum Are there updates on bazelbuild/bazel#16430 ? Would you suggest waiting for the upstream Bazel support before landing go_cross_test with limited functionalities?

@tingilee Can you use a fork of rules_go or patch this PR in for now?

After Bazel 6 has been released, we can probably raise our minimum version of Bazel again and implement env/env_inherit support. We could then consider landing this with an error message shown if the original test uses args and the cross-compiled one doesn't, which should limit the potential for confusion without having to wait for the upstream PR to land.

@fmeum just wanted to check on this. I read the linked PR -- seems like there's quite a bit of discussion around whether or not they even want to support this. Do you think we might be able to convince the Bazel maintainers to accept that PR?