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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Change types.attrs to recursively merge #76760

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Change types.attrs to recursively merge #76760

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sorpaas
Copy link
Member

@sorpaas sorpaas commented Jan 1, 2020 •
edited

Motivation for this change

This is a simple change to make types.attrs use recurisve update merge strategy. I currently cannot think of anything that this change may break, but not sure if I missed anything. So just putting this out for discussion.

Fixes #32217

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)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@infinisil
Copy link
Member

I'm not a fan of this attrs type because it's very much like attrsOf unspecified in that the values aren't given a type. In my opinion attrs should be deprecated and at the relevant locations replaced with whatever the fully specified type is. See also NixOS/rfcs#42 and #75584 which is relevant for this.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 29, 2020

Thank you for your contributions.

This has been automatically marked as stale because it has had no activity for 180 days.

If this is still important to you, we ask that you leave a comment below. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". This lets people see that at least one person still cares about this. Someone will have to do this at most twice a year if there is no other activity.

Here are suggestions that might help resolve this more quickly:

  1. Search for maintainers and people that previously touched the related code and @ mention them in a comment.
  2. Ask on the NixOS Discourse.
  3. Ask on the #nixos channel on irc.freenode.net.

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Jun 29, 2020
@stale stale bot removed the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Oct 3, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 6, 2021

I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Jun 6, 2021
@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Dec 18, 2022

We have the settings options that can do this. And many services are migrated to this already.

@Mic92 Mic92 closed this Dec 18, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@edolstra edolstra Awaiting requested review from edolstra

@nbp nbp Awaiting requested review from nbp

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
2.status: merge conflict 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Telegraf extraConfig is not recursively merged
4 participants
@sorpaas @infinisil @Mic92 @ryantm