game-rs: init at 0.1.3

[Amanse]

Description of changes

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.05 Release Notes (or backporting 22.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[wozeparrot]

The vendor hash is showing up as different for me:

 specified: sha256-0W9FeGdlVQujbUJS9wRlMSw9q/m1W9t5NxRmRZ/fDEw=
    got:    sha256-dBUx7xh9b1gWe0Uc7GYti0r/qib+6jXxeSLu3Uk633c=

[Amanse]

is that the cargo256sum? oh it needs updating after every change in dependencies, i'll use the lockFile argument then

[wozeparrot]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 218590 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• game-rs

[wozeparrot]

Shouldn't this be using fetchFromGitHub?

[Lord-Valen]

Could you change the commit message to maintainers: add amanse?

[Amanse]

done! apologies for the delay

[Amanse]

oh no duplicate commits, I'll push the fix in a while

[wozeparrot]

Vendor hash is different for me again:

         specified: sha256-8gpWV96E9BbvObwuzX6IEBEjrcDArbt04MM+FqAUvGQ=
            got:    sha256-aq58sFK4/Zd8S4dOWjag+g5PmTeaVAK3FS3fW/YlCLs=

[Amanse]

i just did a nix-build -A game-rs on a new VM and it compiled successfully, is there something I'm doing wrong here?

[Lord-Valen]

I'm pretty sure it has to do with fixed-output derivations. Since you built the previous version, and the hash was the same, Nix did not build the vendor derivation and thus did not discover a mismatch. Nix will always build with an empty hash. So, you should specify an empty hash whenever you update before testing. This guarantees that you will always see the correct hash.

[Amanse]

that's what i did... that's why i created a new VM too so that nix store would be empty, it gave the mismatch error on empty string and then i used the hash it provided.
I will try from scratch again, see where i went wrong

[Lord-Valen]

Did you ever figure this out?

[Lord-Valen]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 218590 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• game-rs

[Amanse]

does wozeparrot need to approve too? or it's just waiting time?

[nixos-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/2692

[wozeparrot]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 218590 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• game-rs

[lelgenio]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 218590 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• game-rs

[wegank]

@ofborg build game-rs game-rs.passthru.tests

[github-actions]

Successfully created backport PR for release-23.05:

• [Backport release-23.05] game-rs: init at 0.1.3 #258082