Hi,

Just to report my progress and ask some more questions.
I attached a new image of the json I have by now.

I still have to find a way to use a proper name instead of the 0 and 1
of the array. Another thing that I'm still looking into is why the
"source" field displays the value of the derivations as a name in the
hierarchy, instead of a string.

All the fields are being displayed in the json, but I don't know all the
values the fields can assume, so I don't know exactly which tests I
should do. In the .html file I could see that many more test are
performed to get the same values I got for the json, so probably I'm
missing some, I will look into this, however, for all derivations
comparisons I checked the values seem correct.



On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:41:18 +0100
Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:

> Luciana Lima Brito <lubrito@posteo.net> writes:
> 
> > I'm lubrito on Guix IRC, the Outreachy applicant.
> >
> > I'm working on the json output for the render-compare/derivation
> > procedure (controller.scm).  
> 
> Hi lubrito,
> 
> Good to hear from you.
> 
> > I would like to know if I am on the right path with what I've
> > accomplished until now.  
> 
> You've got some JSON being rendered, so you're definitely on the right
> path :)
> 
> > The attached .ppm file shows the json I have so far. The json is
> > showing only the data for the "outputs", but I already got the data
> > for the rest and I could do the same to them. I am still thinking
> > about how to make the code cleaner, because the way I'm doing could
> > produce many redundancies.
> >
> > I also would like to know if the general structure of the json is
> > correct or if it should be different. For example, under "outputs"
> > "0" is denoting base and "1" is denoting target.
> >
> > The current code for the function is here http://sprunge.us/mKkzX2  
> 
> So, there's no "correct" structure for the JSON, but some structures
> might better represent the data than others, there's a number of
> factors to balance.
> 
> I think an object with base and target names would easier to
> understand than using an array.
> 
> Some of the types in the JSON are a bit off as well, part of this is
> the query processing is not working quite right, but that's a
> different issue. For the JSON you've got so far, I'd specifically
> look at the hash, hash-algorithm and recursive fields. hash and
> hash-algorithm are only set for some outputs (only for fixed output
> derivations), it would probably be better to have these fields set to
> null if they don't have a string value, or not included in the
> object. For recursive, that's a boolean, so it should be a boolean in
> the JSON too.
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Chris



-- 
Best Regards,

Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science