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

effitask: init at 1.4.0 #84291

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 8, 2020
Merged

effitask: init at 1.4.0 #84291

merged 1 commit into from Aug 8, 2020

Conversation

davidak
Copy link
Member

@davidak davidak commented Apr 4, 2020 •
edited

Motivation for this change

it looks like a good todo.txt gui :)

Screenshot from 2020-04-05 01-16-21

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.

@davidak davidak mentioned this pull request Apr 5, 2020
Closed
@davidak davidak force-pushed the effitask branch 2 times, most recently from 4888715 to 3522c3d Compare April 5, 2020 00:20
@Emantor
Copy link
Member

Emantor commented Apr 6, 2020

I get a hash-mismatch when trying to build:

$ nix build --no-link --keep-going --option build-use-sandbox relaxed -f /home/phoenix/.cache/nixpkgs-review/pr-84291/build.nix
hash mismatch in fixed-output derivation '/nix/store/vnb83xkhpmafcigva15javzw0f90j6nb-effitask-1.4.0-vendor.tar.gz':
  wanted: sha256:1crp43577k6ggywmdrphnfa8q353shj7746q07bv2vgbj84qqnqn
  got:    sha256:0dvmp23kny6rlv6c0mfyy3cmz1bi5wcm1mxps4z67lym5kxfd362
cannot build derivation '/nix/store/6qlm90gfg48b1nlkd9d0c0f2xpv1rxa3-effitask-1.4.0.drv': 1 dependencies couldn't be built
cannot build derivation '/nix/store/fyr7p1l5ch6mvyi9znnl266xga367il4-env.drv': 1 dependencies couldn't be built
[1 built (1 failed), 132 copied (1454.1 MiB), 395.2 MiB DL]
error: build of '/nix/store/fyr7p1l5ch6mvyi9znnl266xga367il4-env.drv' failed
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/84291
1 package failed to build:
effitask

@davidak
Copy link
Member Author

davidak commented Apr 6, 2020

@Emantor thanks for your effort to test this!

That is strange. The hash is correct when i build it using nix-env -f ~/code/nixpkgs -i effitask.

installing
hash mismatch in fixed-output derivation '/nix/store/5yvbxh2q627ppk5jvwfk7gpdjphpkv1y-effitask-1.4.0-vendor.tar.gz':
  wanted: sha256:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
  got:    sha256:1crp43577k6ggywmdrphnfa8q353shj7746q07bv2vgbj84qqnqn
cannot build derivation '/nix/store/wyxm09hv0vcm0q5vw5yb7a3g7h7x7yrd-effitask-1.4.0.drv': 1 dependencies couldn't be built
error: build of '/nix/store/wyxm09hv0vcm0q5vw5yb7a3g7h7x7yrd-effitask-1.4.0.drv' failed

And don't get the error with nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review pr 84291".

...
Automatic merge went well; stopped before committing as requested
$ nix build --no-link --keep-going --option build-use-sandbox relaxed -f /home/davidak/.cache/nixpkgs-review/pr-84291/build.nix
warning: ignoring the user-specified setting 'sandbox', because it is a restricted setting and you are not a trusted user
[2 built, 224 copied (1890.5 MiB), 485.3 MiB DL]
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/84291
1 package built:
effitask

What could be the difference here?

@Emantor
Copy link
Member

Emantor commented Apr 7, 2020

@davidak are you on stable or unstable? I'm running NixOS unstable.

@davidak
Copy link
Member Author

davidak commented Apr 7, 2020

@Emantor i'm on stable.

nixpkgs-review has the same version.

$ nix run -f channel:nixos-19.09 nixpkgs-review
$ which nixpkgs-review
/nix/store/35vbwh8hmy935xhh6xd5x65c74iz597g-nixpkgs-review-2.2.0/bin/nixpkgs-review

$ nix run -f channel:nixos-unstable nixpkgs-review
$ which nixpkgs-review
/nix/store/9ywlmbslln9va0i2kmbj9gz1bdc40a44-nixpkgs-review-2.2.0/bin/nixpkgs-review

Maybe the Nix version?

$ nix --version
nix (Nix) 2.3.3

@Emantor
Copy link
Member

Emantor commented Apr 7, 2020

I suspect there were some changes pertaining to cargo-vendor. Stable still contains cargo-vendor while master has dropped it for the builtin support in cargo version 1.37.

@davidak
Copy link
Member Author

davidak commented Apr 7, 2020

@Emantor but the PR is branched from master, so it shouldn't make a difference? Or does nixpkgs-review build the changes of the PR on the current system channel?

@Emantor
Copy link
Member

Emantor commented Apr 7, 2020

Indeed, cargo should be used from master too. Maybe @alyssais has an idea? (pinging because she did some cargo sha fixups on master, found by a quick git log --grep)

@davidak
Copy link
Member Author

davidak commented Jun 2, 2020

I had access to a machine with nixos unstable and was able to reproduce the error. Updated it to work on master.

To run it properly, it has to be installed. in nix shell are assets not found. it also neede configured todo.txt-cli (see readme)

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/250

@alyssais alyssais merged commit 416b44d into NixOS:master Aug 8, 2020
@davidak davidak deleted the effitask branch August 8, 2020 22:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
8.has: package (new) 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-darwin: 1 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1 11.by: package-maintainer
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@davidak @Emantor @nixos-discourse @alyssais