We were bedeviled by sandboxing issues when working on the layered
store. The problem ended up being that when we have nested nix builds,
and the inner store is inside the build dir (e.g. store is
`/build/nix-test/$name/store`, build dir is `/build`) bind mounts
clobber each other and store paths cannot be found.
After thoroughly cleaning up `local-derivation-goal.cc`, we might be
able to make that work. But that is a lot of work. For now, we just fail
earlier with a proper error message.
Finally, test this: nested sandboxing without the problematic store dir
should work, and with should fail with the expected error message.
Co-authored-by: Dylan Green <67574902+cidkidnix@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
- Better types
- Own header / C++ file pair
- Test factored out methods
- Pass parsed thing around more than strings
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
'resolvedRef' was incorrect, since a resolved ref is one after
registry resolution, which may still be unlocked (e.g. 'nixpkgs' ->
'github:NixOS/nixpkgs').
If we call `adjustLoc`, the global variable `prev_yylloc` is shared
between threads and racy.
Currently, nix itself does not concurrently parsing files, but this is
helpful for libexpr users. (The parser is thread-safe except this.)
When explicitly requested by the caller, as suggested in the meeting
(https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/8090#issuecomment-1531139324)
> @edolstra: { toPath } vs { fromPath } is too implicit
I've opted for the `inputAddressed = true` requirement, because it
we did not agree on renaming the path attributes.
> @roberth: more explicit
> @edolstra: except for the direction; not immediately clear in which direction the rewriting happens
This is in fact the most explicit syntax and a bit redundant, which is
good, because that redundancy lets us deliver an error message that
reminds expression authors that CA provides a better experience to
their users.
This is done in roughly the same way builtin functions are documented.
Also auto-link experimental features for primops, subsuming PR #8371.
Co-authored-by: Eelco Dolstra <edolstra@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
* nix flake check: improve error message if overlay is not a lambda
Suppose you have an overlay like this
{
inputs = { /* ... */ };
outputs = { flake-utils, ... }: flake-utils.lib.eachDefaultSystem
(system: {
overlays.default = final: prev: {
};
});
}
then `nix flake check` (correctly) fails because `overlays` are supposed
to have the structure `overlays.<name> = final: prev: exp`. However, the
error-message is a little bit counter-intuitive:
error: overlay does not take an argument named 'final'
While one might guess where the error actually comes from because the
trace above says `… while checking the overlay 'overlays.x86_64-linux'`
this is still pretty confusing because it complains about an argument
not being named `final` even though that's evidently the case.
With this change, the error-message actually makes it clear what's
wrong:
[ma27@carsten:~/Projects/nix/tmp]$ nix flake check --extra-experimental-features 'nix-command flakes' path:$(pwd)
error:
… while checking flake output 'overlays'
at /nix/store/clgblnxx003hyrq8qkz5ab6kgqkck6qc-source/flake.nix:4:5:
3| outputs = { ... }: {
4| overlays.x86_64-linux.snens = final: prev: {
| ^
5| kek = throw "snens";
… while checking the overlay 'overlays.x86_64-linux'
at /nix/store/clgblnxx003hyrq8qkz5ab6kgqkck6qc-source/flake.nix:4:5:
3| outputs = { ... }: {
4| overlays.x86_64-linux.snens = final: prev: {
| ^
5| kek = throw "snens";
error: overlay is not a lambda, but a set instead
I got very confused trying to keep all the `first` and `second` straight
reading the code, *especially* as there is also another `(boolean,
string)` pair type also being used.
Named fields is much better.
There are other cleanups that we can do (for example, the existing
TODO), but we can do them later. Doing them now would just make this
harder to review.
Robert Hensing
Maximilian Bosch