testers.hasPkgConfigModules: add optional version check

[nbraud]

Description of changes

• testers: add pkgConfigModulesVersions, which tests that pkgconf modules' version metadata match the package's
• miniz: use the new tester
• doc: mention the new tester in pkg-config section

Not done: making the new tester run as part of testMetaPkgConfig, as the new test fails on some drvs.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• Tested, as applicable:
  • and/or package tests
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nixpkgs-review.
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[nbraud]

Not sure how I feel about the tester's name, there probably are better choices

[mkg20001]

would it make sense to put both tests into one and then have a flag to enable/disable checking version?

[roberth]

I think it'd be fine to put the check in the existing function - sort of; does need a rename then, but that's all.
They're both about pkg-config, both check a package, and both checks run in the same environment (e.g. buildInputs).

Usually, small functions are good, but derivations do have some overhead, such as extra substituter queries, so I try to factor that in to my decisions, although I'm probably not very consistent about that anyway. Just my two cents.

[nbraud]

I think it'd be fine to put the check in the existing function - sort of; does need a rename then, but that's all.

Which existing function? There's both hasPkgConfigModules, and testMetaPkgConfig which wraps the former in another layer of runCommand for some reason.

Usually, small functions are good, but derivations do have some overhead, such as extra substituter queries.

Absolutely. My preference would also be to have that in testMetaPkgConfig... but there exist drvs like mir which already use the tester and would fail the new check.
I guess it would be possible to put it in hasPkgConfigModules, since it has an attrset parameter.

[nbraud]

@roberth I made the check part of testers.hasPkgConfigModules instead, and updated the example in the nixpkgs documentation to use that rather than testMetaPkgConfig. Any thoughts on this?

In principle, I guess the test could be made part of testMetaPkgConfig, using a passthru attribute on the drv to control whether to enforce consistency of version numbers. That seems uglier though, both in terms of API and efficiency.

[nbraud]

Fixed corner case where package has no version attribute

[nbraud]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 307770 run on x86_64-linux 1

[roberth]

Interface and implementation look good.
Could you add test cases to pkgs/build-support/testers/hasPkgConfigModules/tests.nix?

[nbraud]

Could you add test cases to pkgs/build-support/testers/hasPkgConfigModules/tests.nix?

Done, and thanks: the zlib-does-not-have-ylib test made me notice a very odd bug:

a=0
((a++))  # Increments a and returns 1, which causes the script to exit under `set -e`
((a+=1)) # Increments a but does not return the result, does not cause an error

PS: Sorry, forgot to git pfusch first

[nbraud]

Sorry, I had forgotten to rebase the fixup! commit away. Fixed, introducing no change

[nbraud]

@roberth Could you confirm this is OK to merge for you, now there are tests?

[roberth]

Awesome, thanks!

[mweinelt]

Bisect indicates this commit broke python3.tests.pkg-config (for all python versions).

1e9d263dd71d0b42baa8b0d6699864af9fbb669f is the first bad commit
commit 1e9d263dd71d0b42baa8b0d6699864af9fbb669f
Author: nicoo <nicoo@mur.at>
Date:   Mon Apr 29 16:33:54 2024 +0000

    testers.hasPkgConfigModules: Optionally check each module's version

 .../testers/hasPkgConfigModules/tester.nix         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

 > checking pkg-config module python3 in /nix/store/m51f0kclg01xdc0mjxqs5cpyaxqbqhg5-python3-3.12.3
 > ❌ pkg-config module python3 exists and has version 3.12 when 3.12.3 was expected
 > 1 version mismatches

[roberth]

@mweinelt fix in #310535. Sorry for the oversight.