Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions.

Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human.

If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do:

If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list.

If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past.

If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments.

Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel.

@jbedo is this still relevant?

Yes, the test expression I provided still failed on master and the patch resolves it. I've updated the test expression hash since alpine's latest image has changed since opening the PR.

Please add a test in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/docker-tools.nix so this won't break again in the future.

Please add a test in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/docker-tools.nix so this won't break again in the future.

I've added an example (exportBash) that exercises the function, but adding a test along the lines of

docker.succeed("tar -tf ${examples.exportBash} > /dev/null")

fails with

would reformat /nix/store/2frmry0c8ni7bmza4kjika3ry4k12hwk-nixos-test-driver-docker-tools/test-script
Oh no! 💥 💔 💥
1 file would be reformatted.

and I have no idea why. Any tips?

Please add a test in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/docker-tools.nix so this won't break again in the future.

I've added an example (exportBash) that exercises the function, but adding a test along the lines of

docker.succeed("tar -tf ${examples.exportBash} > /dev/null")

fails with

would reformat /nix/store/2frmry0c8ni7bmza4kjika3ry4k12hwk-nixos-test-driver-docker-tools/test-script
Oh no! 💥 💔 💥
1 file would be reformatted.

and I have no idea why. Any tips?

I've disabled that "check" on master, so if you rebase, it won't happen again. It wasn't an actual linter, but just a code formatter that doesn't understand Nix.

The testing all seems good now, we just need to decide how to best resolve the issue. Wrapping is perhaps the cleanest, but I'm not keen on doubling disk usage.

Sorry for the spam, I'm trying to rebase against current master and it's pulling in other people's commits for some reason.

OK got there by cherry picking in a new branch, sorry again for the noise.

master is currently broken for exporting images so I still think it's worth resolving this. The test suits (extended with the export image test) passes.

The test suits (extended with the export image test) passes.

Before 1a0edf1, the new test for exportImage didn't pass because it still wrote a directory. I've fixed it in order to run the tests for my other changes. Do you agree with the fix?

That's a much cleaner solution, thanks! The fix looks good to me.

x86_64-linux failure on ofborg does not reproduce locally and seems unrelated.