This allows having multiple separate lockfiles for a single
project, which can be useful for testing against different versions of
nixpkgs; it also allows tracking custom input overrides for remote
flakes without requiring local clones of these flakes.
For example, if I want to build Nix against my locally pinned nixpkgs,
and have a lock file tracking this override independently of future
updates to said nixpkgs:
nix flake lock --output-lock-file /tmp/nix-flake.lock --override-input nixpkgs flake:nixpkgs
nix build --reference-lock-file /tmp/nix-flake.lock
Co-Authored-By: Will Fancher <elvishjerricco@gmail.com>
It would be incorrect to say that the `sourceInfo` has an `outPath`
that isn't the root. `sourceInfo` is about the root, whereas only
the flake may not be about the root. Thanks Eelco for pointing that
out.
`DerivedPath::Built` and `DerivationGoal` were previously using a
regular set with the convention that the empty set means all outputs.
But it is easy to forget about this rule when processing those sets.
Using `OutputSpec` forces us to get it right.
This makes the position object used in exceptions abstract, with a
method getSource() to get the source code of the file in which the
error originated. This is needed for lazy trees because source files
don't necessarily exist in the filesystem, and we don't want to make
libutil depend on the InputAccessor type in libfetcher.
Make everything be in the form "while ..." (most things were already),
and in particular *don't* use other propositions that must go after or
before specific "while ..." clauses to make sense.
Make sure that people who run Nix in non-interactive mode (and so don't have the possibility to interactively accept the individual flake configuration settings) are aware of this flag.
Fix#7086
I recently got fairly confused why the following expression didn't have
any effect
{
description = "Foobar";
inputs.sops-nix = {
url = github:mic92/sops-nix;
inputs.nixpkgs_22_05.follows = "nixpkgs";
};
}
until I found out that the input was called `nixpkgs-22_05` (please note
the dash vs. underscore).
IMHO it's not a good idea to not throw an error in that case and
probably leave end-users rather confused, so I implemented a small check
for that which basically checks whether `follows`-declaration from
overrides actually have corresponding inputs in the transitive flake.
In fact this was done by accident already in our own test-suite where
the removal of a `follows` was apparently forgotten[1].
Since the key of the `std::map` that holds the `overrides` is a vector
and we have to find the last element of each vector (i.e. the override)
this has to be done with a for loop in O(n) complexity with `n` being
the total amount of overrides (which shouldn't be that large though).
Please note that this doesn't work with nested expressions, i.e.
inputs.fenix.inputs.nixpkgs.follows = "...";
which is a known problem[2].
For the expression demonstrated above, an error like this will be
thrown:
error: sops-nix has a `follows'-declaration for a non-existant input nixpkgs_22_05!
[1] 2664a216e5
[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/5790
Overrides for inputs with flake=false were non-sticky, since they
changed the `original` in `flake.lock`. This fixes it, by using the same
locked original for both flake and non-flake inputs.
