Allows marking an option as invisible, without excluding its sub-options.
In practice, this is similar to `visible = true; internal = true;`,
however it is more explicit and less reliant on implementation details.
renamed `mac` to `octets` in hextets combining step for better var
naming; rephrased error message to provide a hint of expected format;
replaced `Arguments` with `Inputs` in docstring; added more test cases
for invalid hex digits; added comments in hextets combining step;
At the scale of Nixpkgs, actively maintaining a package is only possible
with integration into CI. To be able to be pinged for review requests,
the maintainer must have a GitHub handle, which:
- Leads to an invitation to the NixOS org, which comes with additional
privileges.
- Allows to request the maintainer for review as a member of this org.
- Automatically requests the maintainer for review in CI.
Currently, the GitHub handle is not strictly enforced. This leads to
some new maintainers accidentally forgetting to set these. We can avoid
these mistakes and enforce them via CI.
This doesn't do the right thing here, because it evaluates
the test with nix that is evaluating the `nixpkgs-lib-tests-nix-${nix.version}`
derivation, not the Nix/Lix under test. This was just really busted for a long
time.
`fromHexString` is backed by `builtins.fromTOML`. Per [the TOML
v1.0.0 specification]:
> Arbitrary 64-bit signed integers (from −2^63 to 2^63−1) should be
> accepted and handled losslessly. If an integer cannot be represented
> losslessly, an error must be thrown.
[the TOML v1.0.0 specification]: <https://toml.io/en/v1.0.0#integer>
The saturating behaviour of the toml11 version currently used
by Nix is not lossless, and is therefore a violation of the TOML
specification. We should not be relying on it. This blocks the update
of toml11, as it became stricter about reporting this condition.
This, yes, is arguably an evaluation compatibility break. However,
integer overflow was recently explicitly defined as an error by
both Nix and Lix, as opposed to the C++ undefined behaviour it was
previously implemented as:
* <https://nix.dev/manual/nix/stable/release-notes/rl-2.25>
* <https://docs.lix.systems/manual/lix/stable/release-notes/rl-2.91.html#fixes>
This included changing `builtins.fromJSON` to explicitly
reject overflowing integer literals. I believe that the case for
`builtins.fromTOML` is comparable, and that we are effectively testing
undefined behaviour in TOML and the Nix language here, in the same way
that we would have been if we had tests relying on overflowing integer
arithmetic. I am not aware of any use of this behaviour outside of
these tests; the reverted toml11 bump in Nix did not break the 23.11
evaluation regression test, for example.
C++ undefined behaviour is not involved here, as toml11 used the C++
formatted input functions that are specified to saturate on invalid
values. But it’s still a violation of the TOML specification caused
by insufficient error checking in the old version of the library,
and inconsistent with the handling of overflowing literals in the
rest of Nix.
Let’s fix this so that Nix implementations can correctly flag up
this error and we can unblock the toml11 update.
This was cherry‐picked from
<https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/266705> and merged as part of
<https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/318712>, despite there being
a blocking review on the former pointing out these kinds of issues.
This documents some of the dodgy behaviour. It also can’t handle
negative literals. It might be worth considering deprecating and
dropping this, by inlining it into `lib.network.ipv6.fromString`,
its only in‐tree user.
This has been marked insecure a while ago, as some CVEs have not been
backported. Even if *some* CVEs are fixed, we'd need **all** of them to
be, to get it back into the cache.
Not having it in the cache means, we can not test it in CI. This means
we can't make sure to actually support this version to evaluate Nixpkgs.
The concept of this alias becomes questionable once we move past 2.18,
where Lix was forked. We should probably move to a feature-detection
based approach for lib/minver.nix eventually, too.
As initially designed, `lib.packagesFromDirectoryRecursive` allowed
passing a string for the `directory` argument. This is necessary for
several reasons:
- `outPath` on derivations and Flake inputs is not a path.
- Derivations can be coerced to their `outPath` in string interpolation,
but that produces strings, not paths.
- `builtins.path`, bizarrely, returns a string instead of a path (not
that the documentation makes this clear).
If a path is used instead of a string here, then Nix will dutifully copy
the entire directory into a new path in the Nix store (ignored as
WONTFIX by Eelco in https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/9428). For
industrial use cases, this can result in an extra 10-15 seconds on every
single eval just to copy files from one spot in the Nix store to another
spot in the Nix store.
In #361424, this was changed so that `directory` must be a path,
breaking these use-cases.
I'm not really sure what happened here -- #361424 has very little
justification for why it exists, only a reference to a previous version
of the PR (#359941), which itself had very little justification given.
The description on #359941 explained that it would "Shrink the
function's code by ~2/3rd 🎉", but 60% of the reduction in size was just
deleting comments (!) and bindings like `directoryEntryIsPackage` that
helped clarify the intent of the implementation. As a result, the new
implementation is (to my eyes) more challenging to read and understand.
I think the whole thing was in service of #392800, which adds a
`newScope` argument in order "to create nested scopes for each
(sub)directory (not just the top-level one) when `newScope` is given."
Nobody noticed this regression until after the commit was merged. After
@phanirithvij pointed out the regression, @nbraud said they would
"shortly prepare a PR to fix this" [1] but did not. Later, they would
explain that they were "quite ill the last month(s)" [2], which explains
why this got forgotten about. @nbraud also requested a review from
@Gabriella439 [3], as she had reviewed the original PR adding
`lib.packagesFromDirectoryRecursive`, but not from me, the original
author of that PR. @Gabriella439 did not review the "refactor" PR, and
no attempt to contact her or myself was made after that initial request.
This behavior is admittedly rather subtle, so I'm not sure either
Gabriella or myself would have noticed the change (especially since the
relevant PR restructures the entire implementation).
While I find this a bit frustrating, I should have added a test for this
use-case in my original PR; if there was a test that relied on passing
paths in as a string, perhaps the authors modifying this code would have
noticed that the implementation was not an accident.
[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/361424#discussion_r1912407693
[2]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/359984#issuecomment-2775768808
[3]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/361424#issuecomment-2521308983
