weechatScripts: recurseIntoAttrs #73495
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ofborg
bot
added
8.has: package (new)
10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10
10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
labels
jonringer
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nix-review passes on NixOS
diff LGTM
[16 built, 7 copied (3.2 MiB), 0.7 MiB DL]
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/73495
4 package were build:
weechatScripts.wee-slack weechatScripts.weechat-autosort weechatScripts.weechat-matrix-bridge weechatScripts.weechat-otr
going to wait for someone who is more opinionated to weigh in
|
LGTM. Assuming all of those attributes build, then I'm completely 👍 on this.
|
|
@GrahamcOfBorg build weechatScripts curious if it will build an attr set |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation for this change
In 8f86439 @oxij marked the
weechatScriptsset asdontRecurseIntoAttrs.That didn't really change anything, just made it more explicit that those attributes are not traversed.
This seems to cause @GrahamcOfBorg to not detect and test changes to these outputs, like in #73460.
I don't know the policy on when (not) to use
recurseIntoAttrs, so this is a question worded as a PR.