When --unpack was used the nix would add the current directory to the
nix store instead of the content of unpacked.
The reason for this is that std::distance already consumes the iterator.
To fix this we re-instantiate the directory iterator in case the
directory only contains a single entry.
- use the iterator in `CanonPath` to count `level`
- use the `CanonPath::basename` method
- use `CanonPath::root` instead of `CanonPath{""}`
- remove `Path` and `PathView`, use `std::filesystem::path` directly
Inspired by
010ff57ebb
From the original PR:
> We do not have any of these warnings appearing at the moment, but
> it seems like a good idea to enable [[nodiscard]] checking anyway.
> Once we start introducing more functions with must-use conditions we will
> need such checking, and the rust stdlib has proven them very useful.
The code that counts the number of elided attrs incorrectly used the
per-printer "global" attribute counter instead of a counter that
was relevant only to the current attribute set.
This bug flew under the radar because often the attribute sets aren't
nested, not big enough, or we wouldn't pay attention to the numbers.
I've noticed the issue because the difference underflowed.
Although this behavior is tested by the functional test
lang/eval-fail-bad-string-interpolation-4.nix, the underflow slipped
through review. A simpler reproducer would be as follows, but I
haven't added it to the test suite to keep it simple and marginally
faster.
```
$ nix run nix/2.23.1 -- eval --expr '"" + (let v = { a = { a = 1; b = 2; c = 1; d = 1; e = 1; f = 1; g = 1; h = 1; }; b = { a = 1; b = 1; c = 1; }; }; in builtins.deepSeq v v)'
error:
… while evaluating a path segment
at «string»:1:6:
1| "" + (let v = { a = { a = 1; b = 2; c = 1; d = 1; e = 1; f = 1; g = 1; h = 1; }; b = { a = 1; b = 1; c = 1; }; }; in builtins.deepSeq v v)
| ^
error: cannot coerce a set to a string: { a = { a = 1; b = 2; c = 1; d = 1; e = 1; f = 1; g = 1; h = 1; }; b = { a = 1; «4294967289 attributes elided» }; }
```
The old `std::variant` is bad because we aren't adding a new case to
`FileIngestionMethod` so much as we are defining a separate concept ---
store object content addressing rather than file system object content
addressing. As such, it is more correct to just create a fresh
enumeration.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
