I think it is bad for these reasons when `tests/` contains a mix of
functional and integration tests
- Concepts is harder to understand, the documentation makes a good
unit vs functional vs integration distinction, but when the
integration tests are just two subdirs within `tests/` this is not
clear.
- Source filtering in the `flake.nix` is more complex. We need to
filter out some of the dirs from `tests/`, rather than simply pick
the dirs we want and take all of them. This is a good sign the
structure of what we are trying to do is not matching the structure
of the files.
With this change we have a clean:
```shell-session
$ git show 'HEAD:tests'
tree HEAD:tests
functional/
installer/
nixos/
```
(cherry picked from commit 68c81c737571794f7246db53fb4774e94fcf4b7e)
The Derivation parser and old ATerm unfortunately leaves few ways to get
nice errors when an old version of Nix encounters a new version of the
format. The most likely scenario for this to occur is with a new client
making a derivation that the old daemon it is communicating with cannot
understand.
The extensions we just created for dynamic derivation deps will add a
version field, solving the problem going forward, but there is still the
issue of what to do about old versions of Nix up to now.
The solution here is to carefully catch the bad error from the daemon
that is likely to indicate this problem, and add some extra context to
it.
There is another "Ugly backwards compatibility hack" in
`remote-store.cc` that also works by transforming an error.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
In the Nix language, given a drv path, we should be able to construct
another string referencing to one of its output. We can do this today
with `(import drvPath).output`, but this only works for derivations we
already have.
With dynamic derivations, however, that doesn't work well because the
`drvPath` isn't yet built: importing it like would need to trigger IFD,
when the whole point of this feature is to do "dynamic build graph"
without IFD!
Instead, what we want to do is create a placeholder value with the right
string context to refer to the output of the as-yet unbuilt derivation.
A new primop in the language, analogous to `builtins.placeholder` can be
used to create one. This will achieve all the right properties. The
placeholder machinery also will match out the `outPath` attribute for CA
derivations works.
In 60b7121d2c we added that type of
placeholder, and the derived path and string holder changes necessary to
support it. Then in the previous commit we cleaned up the code
(inspiration finally hit me!) to deduplicate the code and expose exactly
what we need. Now, we can wire up the primop trivally!
Part of RFC 92: dynamic derivations (tracking issue #6316)
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
We want to be able to write down `foo.drv^bar.drv^baz`:
`foo.drv^bar.drv` is the dynamic derivation (since it is itself a
derivation output, `bar.drv` from `foo.drv`).
To that end, we create `Single{Derivation,BuiltPath}` types, that are
very similar except instead of having multiple outputs (in a set or
map), they have a single one. This is for everything to the left of the
rightmost `^`.
`NixStringContextElem` has an analogous change, and now can reuse
`SingleDerivedPath` at the top level. In fact, if we ever get rid of
`DrvDeep`, `NixStringContextElem` could be replaced with
`SingleDerivedPath` entirely!
Important note: some JSON formats have changed.
We already can *produce* dynamic derivations, but we can't refer to them
directly. Today, we can merely express building or example at the top
imperatively over time by building `foo.drv^bar.drv`, and then with a
second nix invocation doing `<result-from-first>^baz`, but this is not
declarative. The ethos of Nix of being able to write down the full plan
everything you want to do, and then execute than plan with a single
command, and for that we need the new inductive form of these types.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
Grouping our tests should make it easier to understand the intent than
one long poorly-arranged list. It also is convenient for running just
the tests for a specific component when working on that component.
We need at least one test group so this isn't dead code; I decided to
collect the tests for the `ca-derivations` and `dynamic-derivations`
experimental features in groups. Do
```bash
make ca.test-group -jN
```
and
```bash
make dyn-drv.test-group -jN
```
to try running just them.
I originally did this as part of #8397 for being able to just the local
overlay store alone. I am PRing it separately now so we can separate
general infra from new features.
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
