Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mailhog: 1.0.0 -> 1.0.1 #97445

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Dec 17, 2020
Merged

mailhog: 1.0.0 -> 1.0.1 #97445

merged 2 commits into from Dec 17, 2020

Conversation

jojosch
Copy link
Member

@jojosch jojosch commented Sep 8, 2020

Motivation for this change

New upstream release https://github.com/mailhog/MailHog/releases/tag/v1.0.1

Also added a simple test.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
/nix/store/scbrzia1k90bmmlb8jpzhh6ckx1fcnq5-MailHog-1.0.0	  43.1M
/nix/store/n76p7lr52agz7zw2zksr73vhgyayjdci-MailHog-1.0.1	  43.3M

Copy link
Contributor

@drewrisinger drewrisinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • Diff LGTM
  • Commits LGTM
  • Builds via nix-review
  • Missing changelog meta.changelog
  • Didn't/don't know how to run the test.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/97445
1 package built:
mailhog

pkgs/servers/mail/mailhog/default.nix Show resolved Hide resolved
@jojosch
Copy link
Member Author

jojosch commented Sep 9, 2020

@drewrisinger the test can be run with nix-build nixos/tests/mailhog.nix

Copy link
Contributor

@drewrisinger drewrisinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small change to Diff about fetcher rev, then LGTM.

I tried to run the test, but got the following error, not worth debugging IMHO. Would appreciate a merger to look over the test before merging, b/c I have no experience w/ nixos tests

error: a 'x86_64-linux' with features {kvm, nixos-test} is required to build '/nix/store/s52b23f87zr48j8h6srbiq5z09i17blk-vm-test-run-mailhog.drv', but I am a 'x86_64-linux' with features {benchmark, big-parallel, nixos-test}

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@

buildGoPackage rec {
pname = "MailHog";
version = "1.0.0";
version = "1.0.1";
rev = "v${version}";
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
rev = "v${version}";

This is non-standard. This line should be kept, moved into fetchFromGitHub.

@drewrisinger
Copy link
Contributor

Was just browsing through the meta section of manual, and that might suggest adding meta.passthru.tests. See https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/stable/#sec-standard-meta-attributes

I've honestly never dealt with nixos tests, so sorry I'm not much help.

Copy link
Contributor

@doronbehar doronbehar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The commit should be separated into two - one adding a test and the other for the update.

@doronbehar
Copy link
Contributor

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 97445 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:
  • mailhog

@doronbehar
Copy link
Contributor

Test runs fine as well.

@doronbehar doronbehar merged commit dd89605 into NixOS:master Dec 17, 2020
@jojosch jojosch deleted the mailhog-1.0.1 branch December 17, 2020 18:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants