It might seem obnoxious to have yet more configure flags, but I found
controlling both the unit and functional tests with one flag was quite
confusing because they are so different:
- unit tests depending on building, functional tests don't (e.g. when
we test already-built Nix)
- unit tests can be installed, functional tests cannot
- unit tests neeed extra libraries (GTest, RapidCheck), functional
tests need extra executables (jq).
- unit tests are run by `make check`, functional tests are run by `make
installcheck`
Really on a technical level, they seem wholly independent. Only on a
human level ("they are both are tests") do they have anything in common.
I had messed up the logic in cross builds because of this. Now I
split the flag in two (and cleaned up a few other inconsistencies), and
the logic fixed itself.
Co-Authored-By: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Today, with the tests inside a `tests` intermingled with the
corresponding library's source code, we have a few problems:
- We have to be careful that wildcards don't end up with tests being
built as part of Nix proper, or test headers being installed as part
of Nix proper.
- Tests in libraries but not executables is not right:
- It means each executable runs the previous unit tests again, because
it needs the libraries.
- It doesn't work right on Windows, which doesn't want you to load a
DLL just for the side global variable . It could be made to work
with the dlopen equivalent, but that's gross!
This reorg solves these problems.
There is a remaining problem which is that sibbling headers (like
`hash.hh` the test header vs `hash.hh` the main `libnixutil` header) end
up shadowing each other. This PR doesn't solve that. That is left as
future work for a future PR.
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
This introduces some shared infrastructure for our notion of protocols.
We can then define multiple protocols in terms of that notion.
We an also express how particular protocols depend on each other.
For example, we can define a common protocol and a worker protocol,
where the second depends on the first in terms of the data types it can
read and write.
The "serve" protocol can just use the common one for now, but will
eventually need its own machinary just like the worker protocol for
version-aware serialisers
The motivation is as stated in issue #7814: even though the the C++ API
is internal and unstable, people still want it to be well documented for
sake of learning, code review, and other purposes that aren't predicated
on it being stable.
Fixes#7814
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
