While preparing PRs like #9753, I've had to change error messages in
dozens of code paths. It would be nice if instead of
EvalError("expected 'boolean' but found '%1%'", showType(v))
we could write
TypeError(v, "boolean")
or similar. Then, changing the error message could be a mechanical
refactor with the compiler pointing out places the constructor needs to
be changed, rather than the error-prone process of grepping through the
codebase. Structured errors would also help prevent the "same" error
from having multiple slightly different messages, and could be a first
step towards error codes / an error index.
This PR reworks the exception infrastructure in `libexpr` to
support exception types with different constructor signatures than
`BaseError`. Actually refactoring the exceptions to use structured data
will come in a future PR (this one is big enough already, as it has to
touch every exception in `libexpr`).
The core design is in `eval-error.hh`. Generally, errors like this:
state.error("'%s' is not a string", getAttrPathStr())
.debugThrow<TypeError>()
are transformed like this:
state.error<TypeError>("'%s' is not a string", getAttrPathStr())
.debugThrow()
The type annotation has moved from `ErrorBuilder::debugThrow` to
`EvalState::error`.
As discussed in the maintainer meeting on 2024-01-29.
Mainly this is to avoid a situation where the name is parsed and
treated as a file name, mostly to protect users.
.-* and ..-* are also considered invalid because they might strip
on that separator to remove versions. Doesn't really work, but that's
what we decided, and I won't argue with it, because .-* probably
doesn't seem to have a real world application anyway.
We do still permit a 1-character name that's just "-", which still
poses a similar risk in such a situation. We can't start disallowing
trailing -, because a non-zero number of users will need it and we've
seen how annoying and painful such a change is.
What matters most is preventing a situation where . or .. can be
injected, and to just get this done.
To quote the method doc:
Non-impure derivations can still behave impurely, to the degree permitted
by the sandbox. Hence why this method isn't `isPure`: impure derivations
are not the negation of pure derivations. Purity can not be ascertained
except by rather heavy tools.
Use `diff --color=always` to print colored output for language test
failures. I've also flipped the arguments so that expected lines missing
from the actual output will be marked with a red `-` and additional
lines found in the actual output will be marked with a green `+`.
Previously it was the other way around, which was very confusing.
The code works fine on macOS, but the default stack size we attempt to
set is larger than what my system will allow (Nix attempts to set the
stack size to 67108864, but the maximum allowed is 67092480), so I've
instead used the requested stack size or the maximum allowed, whichever
is smaller.
I've also added an error message if setting the stack size fails. It
looks like this:
> Failed to increase stack size from 8372224 to 67108864 (maximum
> allowed stack size: 67092480): Invalid argument
