Recently, I encountered the "NAR info file 'xxxx' is corrupt" error
with my binary cache. The message is not helpful in determining, which
kind of corruption happened. The file, fetched with curl, looked
reasonably.
This commit adds more information to the error message, which should
allow debugging and hopefully fixing the problem.
We finally test the status quo of remote build trust in a number of
ways. We create a new experimental feature on `nix-daemon` to do so.
PR #3921, which improves the situation with trustless remote building,
will build upon these changes. This code / tests was pull out of there
to make this, so everything is easier to review, and in particular we
test before and after so the new behavior in that PR is readily apparent
from the testsuite diff alone.
Issues:
1. Features gated on disabled experimental settings should warn and be
ignored, not silently succeed.
2. Experimental settings in the same config "batch" (file or env var)
as the enabling of the experimental feature should work.
3. For (2), the order should not matter.
These are analogous to the issues @roberth caught with my changes for
arg handling, but they are instead for config handling.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
In many cases we are dealing with a collection of realisations, they are
all outputs of the same derivation. In that case, we don't need
"derivation hashes modulos" to be part of our map key, because the
output names alone will be unique. Those hashes are still part of the
realisation proper, so we aren't loosing any information, we're just
"normalizing our schema" by narrowing the "primary key".
Besides making our data model a bit "tighter" this allows us to avoid a
double `for` loop in `DerivationGoal::waiteeDone`. The inner `for` loop
was previously just to select the output we cared about without knowing
its hash. Now we can just select the output by name directly.
Note that neither protocol is changed as part of this: we are still
transferring `DrvOutputs` over the wire for `BuildResult`s. I would only
consider revising this once #6223 is merged, and we can mention protocol
versions inside factored-out serialization logic. Until then it is
better not change anything because it would come a the cost of code
reuse.
If my memory is correct, @edolstra objected to modifying `wantedOutputs`
upon falling back to doing a build (as we did before), because we should
only modify it in response to new requests --- *actual* wants --- and
not because we are "incidentally" building all the outptus beyond what
may have been requested.
That's a fair point, and the alternative is to replace the boolean soup
with proper enums: Instead of modifying `wantedOuputs` som more, we'll
modify `needsRestart` to indicate we are passed the need.
In https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/6311#discussion_r834863823, I
realized since derivation goals' wanted outputs can "grow" due to
overlapping dependencies (See `DerivationGoal::addWantedOutputs`, called
by `Worker::makeDerivationGoalCommon`), the previous bug fix had an
unfortunate side effect of causing more pointless rebuilds.
In paticular, we have this situation:
1. Goal made from `DerivedPath::Built { foo, {a} }`.
2. Goal gives on on substituting, starts building.
3. Goal made from `DerivedPath::Built { foo, {b} }`, in fact is just
modified original goal.
4. Though the goal had gotten as far as building, so all outputs were
going to be produced, `addWantedOutputs` no longer knows that and so
the goal is flagged to be restarted.
This might sound far-fetched with input-addressed drvs, where we usually
basically have all our goals "planned out" before we start doing
anything, but with CA derivation goals and especially RFC 92, where *drv
resolution* means goals are created after some building is completed, it
is more likely to happen.
So the first thing to do was restore the clearing of `wantedOutputs` we
used to do, and then filter the outputs in `buildPathsWithResults` to
only get the ones we care about.
But fix also has its own side effect in that the `DerivedPath` in the
`BuildResult` in `DerivationGoal` cannot be trusted; it is merely the
*first* `DerivedPath` for which this goal was originally created.
To remedy this, I made `BuildResult` be like it was before, and instead
made `KeyedBuildResult` be a subclass wit the path. Only
`buildPathsWithResults` returns `KeyedBuildResult`s, everything else
just becomes like it was before, where the "key" is unambiguous from
context.
I think separating the "primary key" field(s) from the other fields is
good practical in general anyways. (I would like to do the same thing
for `ValidPathInfo`.) Among other things, it allows constructions like
`std::map<Key, ThingWithKey>` where doesn't contain duplicate keys and
just precludes the possibility of those duplicate keys being out of
sync.
We might leverage the above someday to overload `buildPathsWithResults`
to take a *set* of return a *map* per the above.
-----
Unfortunately, we need to avoid C++20 strictness on designated
initializers.
(BTW
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2287r1.html
this offers some new syntax for this use-case. Hopefully this will be
adopted and we can eventually use it.)
No having that yet, maybe it would be better to not make
`KeyedBuildResult` a subclass to just avoid this.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
As requested by @roberth, it is good to call out the specific instances
we care about, which is `!` for the RPC protocols, and `^` for humans.
This doesn't take advantage of parametricity as much, but since the
human and computer interfaces are good to decouple anyways (we don't
care if they drift further apart over time in the slightest) some
separation and slight duplication is fine.
Also, unit test both round trips.
More progress on issue #5729
The method trivially generalizes to be store-implementation-agnostic, in
fact.
However, we force it to continue to be unimplemented with `RemoteStore`
and `LegacySSHStore` because the implementation we'd get via the
generalization is probably not the one users expect. This keeps our
hands untied to do it right going forward.
For more about the tension between the scheduler logic being
store-type-agnostic and remote stores doing their own scheduling, see
issues #5025 and #5056.
Robert Hensing