Message ID | 43e937e1625b47a80887e68847fb8a8811d3f39f.1670867103.git.mirai@makinata.eu |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [bug#60014] activation: make install-special-file match against pairs as well. | expand |
Hi Bruno, Is this patch related to some specific problem you're running into? I personally would prefer keeping the special file interface as-is, and not mix two different kinds of entries: lists with 2 elements, and pairs. That would avoid having to manage even more edge-cases down the line if some more processing is needed. Otherwise, you're missing the ChangeLog entry format for the commit message, which you can find described at [1]. You can take some inspiration from other commits in the repository. Best,
Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via 写道: > I personally would prefer keeping the special file interface > as-is, and > not mix two different kinds of entries: lists with 2 elements, > and > pairs. That would avoid having to manage even more edge-cases > down the > line if some more processing is needed. I agree with this reasoning, and would go as far as to say that if this fixes anything, that thing should probably be fixed instead…? ‘Takes a list of As, but as a special case, a single A’ is confusing and makes it that much harder for newcomers to move beyond cargo-culting magical snippets. Kind regards, T G-R
On 2022-12-12 20:34, Josselin Poiret wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > Is this patch related to some specific problem you're running into? I > personally would prefer keeping the special file interface as-is, and > not mix two different kinds of entries: lists with 2 elements, and > pairs. That would avoid having to manage even more edge-cases down the > line if some more processing is needed. I'm writing a service definition that uses a special-files-service-type service-extension. The documentation for it says: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The value associated with special-files-service-type services must be a list of tuples where the first element is the “special file” and the second element is its target. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I assume a pair is a reasonable interpretation of 'tuples' in this context, so I proceeded to serialize the fields with: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (cons "filename here" (mixed-text-file "filename" contents ...)) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Which I think is the natural way of doing it. (and communicates the intent, a pair with a path and a file-like object.) Of course, (list "path" file-like-obj) works as well but imo the pair is clearer in purpose. (what meaning would the third element and so on have, if ever present?) This I found out the hard way by getting strange errors until I looked into what happens behind `special-files-service-type' and realizing that only lists were accepted. The mixing of cases is unfortunate (it should have been pairs from the start) but preserves compatibility with existing syntax.
On 2022-12-12 20:52, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via 写道: >> I personally would prefer keeping the special file interface as-is, and >> not mix two different kinds of entries: lists with 2 elements, and >> pairs. That would avoid having to manage even more edge-cases down the >> line if some more processing is needed. > > I agree with this reasoning, and would go as far as to say that if this fixes anything, that thing should probably be fixed instead…? > > ‘Takes a list of As, but as a special case, a single A’ is confusing and makes it that much harder for newcomers to move beyond cargo-culting magical snippets. That's not what's happening here, right now what guix does is: take a list of tuples, where tuples are 2-element lists of path + file-like. This patch does: take a list of tuples, where tuples are pairs of path + file-like (and as a bonus, preserve existing configurations by allowing the pairs to be lists as well).
Hi Bruno, mirai <mirai@makinata.eu> writes: > The documentation for it says: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > The value associated with special-files-service-type services must be a list of tuples where the first element is the “special file” and the second element is its target. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > Which I think is the natural way of doing it. (and communicates the intent, a pair with a path and a file-like object.) Right, that's unfortunate, although that could be changed to “list of lists” to make it clearer. > Of course, (list "path" file-like-obj) works as well but imo the pair is clearer in purpose. > (what meaning would the third element and so on have, if ever present?) > This I found out the hard way by getting strange errors until I looked into what happens behind > `special-files-service-type' and realizing that only lists were accepted. > > The mixing of cases is unfortunate (it should have been pairs from the start) but preserves > compatibility with existing syntax. I agree with you here, but then I think to avoid having to maintain both cases at the same time, all existing uses of special-files-service-type should also be modified, and only one kind should remain, with the other triggering some deprecation warning. You could match to `(path . file-like)`, and if (list? file-like), throw an exception. As a sidenote, the main problem is that Guile is not a statically typed language, but that's a whole other debate to have. In any case, I don't think this patch will be accepted as-is. I would only be partially in favor of the second solution (because it breaks existing code), while the first solution is low-effort and should work well enough. Up to you (and maintainers) to decide. Best,
On 2022-12-13 10:15, Josselin Poiret wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > mirai <mirai@makinata.eu> writes: > >> The documentation for it says: >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> The value associated with special-files-service-type services must be a list of tuples where the first element is the “special file” and the second element is its target. >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> Which I think is the natural way of doing it. (and communicates the intent, a pair with a path and a file-like object.) > > Right, that's unfortunate, although that could be changed to “list of > lists” to make it clearer. > >> Of course, (list "path" file-like-obj) works as well but imo the pair is clearer in purpose. >> (what meaning would the third element and so on have, if ever present?) >> This I found out the hard way by getting strange errors until I looked into what happens behind >> `special-files-service-type' and realizing that only lists were accepted. >> >> The mixing of cases is unfortunate (it should have been pairs from the start) but preserves >> compatibility with existing syntax. > > I agree with you here, but then I think to avoid having to maintain both > cases at the same time, all existing uses of special-files-service-type > should also be modified, and only one kind should remain, with the other > triggering some deprecation warning. You could match to `(path > . file-like)`, and if (list? file-like), throw an exception. The `(= car target) (= cdr file)' match pattern is lifted from https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/tree/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm?id=b54263dc98b2700fa777745405ad7651601bcdc6#n139 as Guile's Pattern Matching page doesn't specify how to match against pairs when I was looking into it. > As a sidenote, the main problem is that Guile is not a statically typed > language, but that's a whole other debate to have. > > In any case, I don't think this patch will be accepted as-is. I would > only be partially in favor of the second solution (because it breaks > existing code), while the first solution is low-effort and should work > well enough. Up to you (and maintainers) to decide. A breaking change here (or a non-breaking "deprecated" warning similar to how bootloader target field was renamed to targets can be done too, but before any further changes its best to discuss if such a change will be received. On 2022-12-12 20:34, Josselin Poiret wrote: > Otherwise, you're missing the ChangeLog entry format for the commit > message, which you can find described at [1]. You can take some > inspiration from other commits in the repository. I'm missing the link at [1], could you resend it? Cheers, Bruno
mirai <mirai@makinata.eu> writes:
> I'm missing the link at [1], could you resend it?
My bad, here it is
[1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html#Change-Logs
Heyo, mirai 写道: > This patch does: take a list of tuples, where tuples are pairs > of path + file-like This is fine. > (and as a bonus, > preserve existing configurations by allowing the pairs to be > lists as well). This not so much. I guess my example was poorly chosen, but at least deprecate the old style, as jpoiret also suggests. That does not mean you need to instantly break old configurations. Kind regards, T G-R
Hi, Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> skribis: > Is this patch related to some specific problem you're running into? I > personally would prefer keeping the special file interface as-is, and > not mix two different kinds of entries: lists with 2 elements, and > pairs. That would avoid having to manage even more edge-cases down the > line if some more processing is needed. I agree. This is a public-facing interface so we should keep it as-is; extending it to support pairs in addition to two-list elements would likely bring confusion and bugs. I’m not entirely sure why we settled on two-list elements rather than pairs back then, but I think it’s OK. Closing? Ludo’.
Hi, While thinking about this, I've noticed that using lists as "pairs" is a pattern that is common in the existing guix code, with openssh-service-type 'authorized-keys' field and G-Expressions 'file-union' as examples. Given the "entrenched" list usage, I don't think it's worth the effort to change the whole system to use pairs at this point (or maybe allow it as it probably just creates more confusion). I will amend the special-files-service-type doc entry to clarify that it expects two-element lists instead. Bruno On 2022-12-20 14:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi, > > Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> skribis: > >> Is this patch related to some specific problem you're running into? I >> personally would prefer keeping the special file interface as-is, and >> not mix two different kinds of entries: lists with 2 elements, and >> pairs. That would avoid having to manage even more edge-cases down the >> line if some more processing is needed. > > I agree. This is a public-facing interface so we should keep it as-is; > extending it to support pairs in addition to two-list elements would > likely bring confusion and bugs. > > I’m not entirely sure why we settled on two-list elements rather than > pairs back then, but I think it’s OK. > > Closing? > > Ludo’.
diff --git a/gnu/build/activation.scm b/gnu/build/activation.scm index 10c9045740..d4a7559651 100644 --- a/gnu/build/activation.scm +++ b/gnu/build/activation.scm @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ (define (activate-special-files special-files) " (define install-special-file (match-lambda - ((target file) + ((or (target file) (? pair? (= car target) (= cdr file))) (let ((pivot (string-append target ".new"))) (mkdir-p (dirname target)) (symlink file pivot)
From: Bruno Victal <mirai@makinata.eu> special-files is a list of 2-tuples (pairs) but matching against a non-list pair would fail as match-lambda was only matching against a list pattern. --- gnu/build/activation.scm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) base-commit: 5fb5af5658b7575a945579a7cf51c193600b76bb