[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#31813: closed ([PATCH] evaluate: Use a generic key

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#31813: closed ([PATCH] evaluate: Use a generic key to identify Cuirass arguments.)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:17:01 +0000

Your message dated Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:16:54 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [bug#31813] [PATCH] evaluate: Use a generic key to 
identify Cuirass arguments.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #31813,
regarding [PATCH] evaluate: Use a generic key to identify Cuirass arguments.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

31813: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=31813
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] evaluate: Use a generic key to identify Cuirass arguments. Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:50:01 +0200
So that Cuirass specifications used to build 'guix-modular' can be named
differently than "guix" and "guix-modular" (see Guix's

The name is used as a primary key, so before that commit, it was also
impossible to have several such specifications.

* bin/evaluate.in (main): Replace custom NAME (passed to PROC) with 'guix'.

Co-authored-by: Mathieu Othacehe <address@hidden>
 bin/evaluate.in | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bin/evaluate.in b/bin/evaluate.in
index d973c44..86d0e83 100644
--- a/bin/evaluate.in
+++ b/bin/evaluate.in
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ exec ${GUILE:address@hidden@} --no-auto-compile -e main -s "$0" 
 ;;;; evaluate -- convert a specification to a job list
 ;;; Copyright © 2016, 2018 Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016, 2017 Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden>
-;;; Copyright © 2017 Mathieu Othacehe <address@hidden>
+;;; Copyright © 2017, 2018 Mathieu Othacehe <address@hidden>
+;;; Copyright © 2018 Clément Lassieur <address@hidden>
 ;;; This file is part of Cuirass.
@@ -98,7 +99,7 @@ building things during evaluation~%")
                 (proc    (module-ref %user-module proc-name))
                 (commit  (assq-ref spec #:current-commit))
                 (name    (assq-ref spec #:name))
-                (args    `((,(string->symbol name)
+                (args    `((guix
                             (revision . ,commit)
                             (file-name . ,source))
                            ,@(or (assq-ref spec #:arguments) '())))

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#31813] [PATCH] evaluate: Use a generic key to identify Cuirass arguments. Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:16:54 +0200 User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1
Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> For the record, this calling convention comes from Hydra.  In Hydra, a
> “jobset” can have several “inputs”, and they all show up in this ‘args’
> list, like:
> where INPUT1 is the famous name shown above.  (See
> <https://github.com/NixOS/hydra/blob/master/src/script/hydra-eval-guile-jobs.in>.)
>> And anyway if we force the argument key to 'guix', 'guix-checkout' or
>> 'guix-modular', it wouldn't prevent us to add other inputs (checkouts)
>> later, I think.
> It would prevent us from distinguishing between different inputs.
> Currently, at least with Hydra, we can do:
>   (assoc-ref args 'some-input)
> and get the file-name, revision, etc. properties corresponding to
> ‘some-input’.
> So I think we should preserve this API.
> The problem we have though is that Cuirass has no notion of “input”.  In
> Hydra’s schema, there’s ‘JobsetInputs’ (that’s where we get the input
> name from in the ‘args’ alist above), which is separate from ‘Jobset’
> (roughly equivalent to ‘Specifications’ in Cuirass.)
>   https://github.com/NixOS/hydra/blob/master/src/sql/hydra.sql
> Perhaps what we should do is introduce an ‘Input’ table to begin with,
> and have ‘Specifications’ refer to one or more of these.
> How does that sound?

Excellent!  That would be the fix for another issue we have: our
specifications also depend on our custom packages repository, which
would be another input (if my understanding is correct).  I'll start
working on it.

> We can apply your patch in the meantime, so that we can effectively have
> several ‘guix-modular’ jobs for example, but what I mean to say is that
> it can only be a temporary workaround for a flaw that needs to be fixed.

Sure, I understand this.  I pushed it.

> Thanks for your patience.  :-)

Thanks for yours :-)

I'm closing this ticket, and I'll open a new one for the 'real' patch.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]