We want to be able to write down `foo.drv^bar.drv^baz`:
`foo.drv^bar.drv` is the dynamic derivation (since it is itself a
derivation output, `bar.drv` from `foo.drv`).
To that end, we create `Single{Derivation,BuiltPath}` types, that are
very similar except instead of having multiple outputs (in a set or
map), they have a single one. This is for everything to the left of the
rightmost `^`.
`NixStringContextElem` has an analogous change, and now can reuse
`SingleDerivedPath` at the top level. In fact, if we ever get rid of
`DrvDeep`, `NixStringContextElem` could be replaced with
`SingleDerivedPath` entirely!
Important note: some JSON formats have changed.
We already can *produce* dynamic derivations, but we can't refer to them
directly. Today, we can merely express building or example at the top
imperatively over time by building `foo.drv^bar.drv`, and then with a
second nix invocation doing `<result-from-first>^baz`, but this is not
declarative. The ethos of Nix of being able to write down the full plan
everything you want to do, and then execute than plan with a single
command, and for that we need the new inductive form of these types.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
When receiving a stream of NARs through the ssh-ng protocol, an already
existing path would cause the NAR archive to not be read in the stream,
resulting in trying to parse the NAR as a ValidPathInfo. This results in
the error message:
error: not an absolute path: 'nix-archive-1'
Fixes#6253
Usually this problem is avoided by running QueryValidPaths before
AddMultipleToStore, but can arise when two parallel nix processes gets
the same response from QueryValidPaths. This makes the problem more
prominent when running builds in parallel.
When loading a derivation from a JSON, malformed input would trigger
cryptic "assertion failed" errors. Simply replacing calls to `operator []`
with calls to `.at()` was not enough, as this would cause json.execptions
to be printed verbatim.
Display nice error messages instead and give some indication where the
error happened.
*Before:*
```
$ echo 4 | nix derivation add
error: [json.exception.type_error.305] cannot use operator[] with a string argument with number
$ nix derivation show nixpkgs#hello | nix derivation add
Assertion failed: (it != m_value.object->end()), function operator[], file /nix/store/8h9pxgq1776ns6qi5arx08ifgnhmgl22-nlohmann_json-3.11.2/include/nlohmann/json.hpp, line 2135.
$ nix derivation show nixpkgs#hello | jq '.[] | .name = 5' | nix derivation add
error: [json.exception.type_error.302] type must be string, but is object
$ nix derivation show nixpkgs#hello | jq '.[] | .outputs = { out: "/nix/store/8j3f8j-hello" }' | nix derivation add
error: [json.exception.type_error.302] type must be object, but is string
```
*After:*
```
$ echo 4 | nix derivation add
error: Expected JSON of derivation to be of type 'object', but it is of type 'number'
$ nix derivation show nixpkgs#hello | nix derivation add
error: Expected JSON object to contain key 'name' but it doesn't
$ nix derivation show nixpkgs#hello | jq '.[] | .name = 5' | nix derivation add
error: Expected JSON value to be of type 'string' but it is of type 'number'
$ nix derivation show nixpkgs#hello | jq '.[] | .outputs = { out: "/nix/store/8j3f8j-hello" }' | nix derivation add
error:
… while reading key 'outputs'
error: Expected JSON value to be of type 'object' but it is of type 'string'
```
It was initially unclear to me which of these are temporary state for
the verify paths computation, and which of these are the results of that
computation to be used in the rest of the function. Now, it is clear,
and enforced.
We don't care about non-store-paths in there (things like `.links`, are,
in fact, allowed). So let's just skip them up front and be more strongly
typed.
Will need to do subclass-specific implementations in the next commit.
This isn't because there will be multiple variations of the daemon
protocol (whew!) but because different clients pick and choose different
parts to use.
This makes it more useful. In general, the derivation will be in one
store, and the realisation info is in another.
This also helps us avoid duplication. See how `resolveDerivedPath` is
now simpler because it uses `queryPartialDerivationOutputMap`. In #8369
we get more flavors of derived path, and need more code to resolve them
all, and this problem only gets worse.
The fact that we need a new method to deal with the multiple dispatch is
unfortunate, but this generally relates to the fact that `Store` is a
sub-par interface, too bulky/unwieldy and conflating separate concerns.
Solving that is out of scope of this PR.
This is part of the RFC 92 work. See tracking issue #6316
We were bedeviled by sandboxing issues when working on the layered
store. The problem ended up being that when we have nested nix builds,
and the inner store is inside the build dir (e.g. store is
`/build/nix-test/$name/store`, build dir is `/build`) bind mounts
clobber each other and store paths cannot be found.
After thoroughly cleaning up `local-derivation-goal.cc`, we might be
able to make that work. But that is a lot of work. For now, we just fail
earlier with a proper error message.
Finally, test this: nested sandboxing without the problematic store dir
should work, and with should fail with the expected error message.
Co-authored-by: Dylan Green <67574902+cidkidnix@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Whereas `ContentAddressWithReferences` is a sum type complex because different
varieties support different notions of reference, and
`ContentAddressMethod` is a nested enum to support that,
`ContentAddress` can be a simple pair of a method and hash.
`ContentAddress` does not need to be a sum type on the outside because
the choice of method doesn't effect what type of hashes we can use.
Co-Authored-By: Cale Gibbard <cgibbard@gmail.com>
- Improved API docs from comment
- Exit codes are for `nix-build`, not just `nix-store --release`
- Make note in tests so the magic numbers are not surprising
Picking up where #8387 left off.
