Hi,
Simon Tournier writes:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 at 10:04, Maxim Cournoyer
> wrote:
>
>>> I agree. On a side note, one of the issue is the time of some tests.
>>> Sometimes, packaging is frustrating: build takes ages, then you fix some
>>> tests, think it will be good, re-launch
Hi Maxim,
On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 at 10:04, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> I agree. On a side note, one of the issue is the time of some tests.
>> Sometimes, packaging is frustrating: build takes ages, then you fix some
>> tests, think it will be good, re-launch “guix build”, another test
>> failing, re
Hi Simon,
Simon Tournier writes:
[...]
>> I think the lower fruits are in looking at making the test suite of the
>> few common offenders more robust (using libfaketime or the likes) to
>> prevent (re)occurrences of time bombs in the future.
>
> I agree. On a side note, one of the issue is the
se and depends on the former.
Re: Turning off tests leads to a different store item
Simon Tournier
Thu, 02 Nov 2023 18:02:18 +0100
id:86y1fgm6lh@gmail.com
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2023-11
https://yhetil.org/guix/86y1
Hi,
Simon Tournier writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 20:20, Saku Laesvuori wrote:
>
>> There is another way: simply preventing the tests from changing the
>> resulting store item. For example, the package could first be built
>> without tests and then that build tree could be copied to th
Hi,
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 20:20, Saku Laesvuori wrote:
> There is another way: simply preventing the tests from changing the
> resulting store item. For example, the package could first be built
> without tests and then that build tree could be copied to the build tree
> of the build with tests
On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:18:40AM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2023-11-08, Felix Lechner via wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 08 2023, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> >> A source tree doesn't produce a derivation. A derivation is the
> >> complete build recipe that captures the source and the package
> >>
On 2023-11-08, Felix Lechner via wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08 2023, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> A source tree doesn't produce a derivation. A derivation is the
>> complete build recipe that captures the source and the package
>> definition, that when built by the daemon produces a store item.
>
> Okay, t
Hi Maxim,
On Wed, Nov 08 2023, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> A source tree doesn't produce a derivation. A derivation is the
> complete build recipe that captures the source and the package
> definition, that when built by the daemon produces a store item.
Okay, thanks! Now I'm going to get it right
Hi Felix,
Felix Lechner writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 07 2023, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>
>>> Felix Lechner via writes:
>>>
Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal
world, would running a test suite ever build a different derivation?
>>
>> You seem to be c
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 07 2023, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> Felix Lechner via writes:
>>
>>> Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal
>>> world, would running a test suite ever build a different derivation?
>
> You seem to be confusing 'derivation', which is the build recip
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Hi,
>
> Suhail writes:
>
>> Felix Lechner via writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 31 2023, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>>>
You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation
tree, so it might affect reproducibility
>>>
>>> Those shortfalls are a consequenc
Hi,
Suhail writes:
> Felix Lechner via writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 31 2023, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>>
>>> You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation
>>> tree, so it might affect reproducibility
>>
>> Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal
>>
Hi,
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 at 14:13, Suhail wrote:
> In addition to the above assumption, software engineering makes another
> assumption that (at times) needs to be relaxed in data science. In
> software engineering, the tests are assumed to have a definitive notion
> of "pass" vs "fail". Whereas
"Tomas Volf" <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:
> On 2023-11-02 15:25:33 +, Suhail wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> The hypothetical test derivation leaves the build artifact unchanged,
>> but does communicate some "side" information. It's like a fixed-output
>> derivation carrying some metadata (further elaboratio
On 2023-11-02 15:25:33 +, Suhail wrote:
> [..]
>
> The hypothetical test derivation leaves the build artifact unchanged,
> but does communicate some "side" information. It's like a fixed-output
> derivation carrying some metadata (further elaboration below).
I am not aware of any, but I wonde
Simon Tournier writes:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 at 18:54, Suhail wrote:
>
>> If our hypothetical build system (say, ds-build-system) were to admit
>> the above invariances, do you foresee some complications that may arise
>> that need to be addressed?
>
> Instead of trying to answer to this questio
Hi,
On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 at 18:54, Suhail wrote:
> If our hypothetical build system (say, ds-build-system) were to admit
> the above invariances, do you foresee some complications that may arise
> that need to be addressed?
Instead of trying to answer to this question, what comes to my mind when
Simon Tournier writes:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 at 15:25, Suhail wrote:
>
>> Yes, with the test derivation being something like a "fixed-output
>> derivation". [[info:guix#Derivations][From the manual]]:
>
> No, it cannot be a “fixed-output” derivation…
>
> …because we cannot know in advance the ex
Greg Hogan writes:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:26 AM Suhail wrote:
>> Perhaps not all. The thing that sets the "check" phase (#:tests?) apart
>> from the rest is that it's an identity transform with a
>> side-effect. i.e., it simply reports on the state of its input (i.e.,
>> the build artifact)
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 18:02, Simon Tournier wrote:
> /gnu/store/7fc3933yqq9hnp4rrxp84gxdpg270k7v-hi-build-2.10
> /gnu/store/7fc3933yqq9hnp4rrxp84gxdpg270k7v-hi-test-2.10
Here is a typo when copy/pasting from my Shell to my Email composer
and editing for more clearity. Obviously, the two items d
Hi,
On Thu, 02 Nov 2023 at 15:25, Suhail wrote:
> It certainly seems to be the case. Would you know the specific place(s)
> in the source code (in addition to guix/derivations.scm and
> guix/store.scm) that would be relevant for this discussion?
I guess all the build systems: guix/build/*.scm a
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:26 AM Suhail wrote:
> Perhaps not all. The thing that sets the "check" phase (#:tests?) apart
> from the rest is that it's an identity transform with a
> side-effect. i.e., it simply reports on the state of its input (i.e.,
> the build artifact) leaving the build artifact
Simon Tournier writes:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 at 17:52, Suhail wrote:
>
>> If not, why should skipping the tests result in a different
>> derivation tree?
>
> The store path is different because it hashes all the inputs, included
> the builder script; from my understanding.
It certainly seems to
Hi,
On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 at 17:52, Suhail wrote:
> If not, why should skipping the tests result in a different derivation
> tree?
The store path is different because it hashes all the inputs, included
the builder script; from my understanding.
For instance, consider the package ’hello’. The de
Felix Lechner via writes:
> On Tue, Oct 31 2023, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>
>> You could skip tests, but that would build a different derivation
>> tree, so it might affect reproducibility
>
> Those shortfalls are a consequence of our packaging habits. In an ideal
> world, would running a test suit
26 matches
Mail list logo
