Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lib/customisation.nix: add addToPassthru #77466

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

@Profpatsch
Copy link
Member

@Profpatsch Profpatsch commented Jan 10, 2020

Motivation for this change

This is a small helper that adds a field to passthru, which is a common task. It fails with an assert message if the field already exists to prevent obvious mistakes.

Adds the customization.nix file to the docstring manual generation, though the existing functions in customisation.nix are not accounted for at the moment.

There’s a bit of xml tag reflow in one commit because of the doc makefile’s vanity.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Profpatsch added 4 commits Jan 10, 2020
When running `make` from within a `nix-shell` in the `doc/` directory,
these xml files reflow a bit, probably because of a linting step.
@Profpatsch Profpatsch force-pushed the Profpatsch:lib-add-addToPassthru branch from e6415b9 to c2c491a Jan 22, 2020
@danbst
Copy link
Contributor

@danbst danbst commented Feb 3, 2020

can you add a few usage examples, and rational behind throwing exception if there already is passthru attr?

@Profpatsch
Copy link
Member Author

@Profpatsch Profpatsch commented Feb 4, 2020

I’m gonna search for a few applications inside nixpkgs, I realized it makes not a lot of sense to upstream if we don’t actually use it upstream.

@Infinisil
Copy link
Member

@Infinisil Infinisil commented Feb 4, 2020

Hm I often do some-derivation // { foo = foo; } to add "passthru"s to derivations, which works, but only as long as you don't do any .override's on it.

*/
addToPassthru =
# field to add
{name, value}:

This comment has been minimized.

@Infinisil

Infinisil Feb 4, 2020
Member

If we end up having this function I think it's much better to pass the attribute set directly as passthru's, instead of using name and value. This is more natural, allows automatic support for multiple passthru's, is more concise, and more efficient too.

This comment has been minimized.

@Profpatsch

Profpatsch Feb 4, 2020
Author Member

You mean to add multiple fields at once?

This comment has been minimized.

@Infinisil

Infinisil Feb 4, 2020
Member

No, just addToPassthru = passthrus: ... { passthru = old.passthru or {} // passthrus; }

This comment has been minimized.

@Profpatsch

Profpatsch Feb 4, 2020
Author Member

So add multiple fields at once?

This comment has been minimized.

@Infinisil

Infinisil Feb 4, 2020
Member

I guess yeah :)

This comment has been minimized.

@Infinisil

Infinisil Feb 4, 2020
Member

Well it doesn't have to be used for multiple fields of course

@stale
Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Sep 27, 2020

Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions.

Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human.

If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do:

If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list.

If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past.

If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments.

Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.