Skip to content

Conversation

@timon-schelling
Copy link
Member

see #420675 (comment)

With versionCheckHook plugins are not allowed to have a -unstable suffix unless the executable also reports it in that way.

versionCheck allows plugin version to have a -unstable suffix without expecting the plugin to report it that way.

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Nixpkgs 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 25.05 Nixpkgs Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • NixOS 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 25.05 NixOS Release notes)
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md, pkgs/README.md, maintainers/README.md and other contributing documentation in corresponding paths.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. labels Jul 2, 2025
@timon-schelling
Copy link
Member Author

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review-gha

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 421842

Logs: https://github.com/timon-schelling/run-nixpkgs-review/actions/runs/16031091224


x86_64-linux (sandbox = true)

✅ 8 packages built:
  • nushellPlugins.formats
  • nushellPlugins.gstat
  • nushellPlugins.hcl
  • nushellPlugins.highlight
  • nushellPlugins.polars
  • nushellPlugins.query
  • nushellPlugins.semver
  • nushellPlugins.skim

aarch64-linux (sandbox = true)

✅ 8 packages built:
  • nushellPlugins.formats
  • nushellPlugins.gstat
  • nushellPlugins.hcl
  • nushellPlugins.highlight
  • nushellPlugins.polars
  • nushellPlugins.query
  • nushellPlugins.semver
  • nushellPlugins.skim

x86_64-darwin (sandbox = true)

✅ 7 packages built:
  • nushellPlugins.formats
  • nushellPlugins.gstat
  • nushellPlugins.hcl
  • nushellPlugins.highlight
  • nushellPlugins.polars
  • nushellPlugins.query
  • nushellPlugins.skim

aarch64-darwin (sandbox = true)

✅ 7 packages built:
  • nushellPlugins.formats
  • nushellPlugins.gstat
  • nushellPlugins.hcl
  • nushellPlugins.highlight
  • nushellPlugins.polars
  • nushellPlugins.query
  • nushellPlugins.skim

Copy link
Contributor

@dtomvan dtomvan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Diff LGTM. Something to think about though, is that this way the version check is an optional one. Contributors need to remember to run the tests manually (this was true before also with loadCheck but that one cannot easily get done as part of the build I don't think).

Again, sorry for breaking your PRs, I was just working off of what was already there in the tree, and those all used the same "we bump our version every time there's a new nushell" pattern, so I couldn't predict that this was going to happen.

I would still prefer if you set dontVersionCheck = true; on any packages that might fail in your open PRs and defined a version check like this as an exception, not the rule.

But I defer to other reviewers, because the ikea effect might be at play here 😅

@timon-schelling
Copy link
Member Author

Contributors need to remember to run the tests manually...

Maybe a alternative hook?

If we want we could run both tests via postInstallCheck right?

Again, sorry for breaking your PRs...

No worries.

I would still prefer if you set dontVersionCheck = true; on any packages that might fail in your open PRs and defined a version check like this as an exception, not the rule.

For current nutshellPluigins yes, for other existing nutshell pluigins maybe and for nixpkgs as a whole -unstable is used relatively often and when I remember correctly even standardized.
But If others also think that the tests should not be changed I will do that, sure.

But I defer to other reviewers, because the ikea effect might be at play here 😅

I would also really like to hear others options.

I could also imagine adding a allowUnstableSuffix option to versionCheckHook would be a option.

@timon-schelling timon-schelling force-pushed the nushellPlugins-allow-unstable-version-names branch from 738581e to 4594b7c Compare July 2, 2025 21:23
@timon-schelling
Copy link
Member Author

I don't like how dbus is passed to the dbus plugin pkg.

With `versionCheckHook` plugins are not allowed to have a `-unstable` suffix unless the executable also reports it in that way.

`versionCheck` allows plugin version to have a `-unstable` suffix without expecting the plugin to report it that way.
@dtomvan
Copy link
Contributor

dtomvan commented Jul 2, 2025

I agree, but it's so that the plugin can access the actual dbus, instead of itself. Because a new scope has been created, if it were to import dbus normally, it would get pkgs.nushellPlugins.dbus instead of pkgs.dbus, due to the name conflict.

@timon-schelling timon-schelling force-pushed the nushellPlugins-allow-unstable-version-names branch from 4594b7c to f5ce168 Compare July 2, 2025 21:31
@timon-schelling
Copy link
Member Author

I agree, but it's so that the plugin can access the actual dbus, instead of itself. Because a new scope has been created, if it were to import dbus normally, it would get pkgs.nushellPlugins.dbus instead of pkgs.dbus, due to the name conflict.

yeah I know, but still doesn't feel right

@timon-schelling timon-schelling marked this pull request as ready for review July 2, 2025 21:35
@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/3032/5728

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants