From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Soo Subject: Re: (not) testing Rust packages?! Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:50:38 -0800 Message-ID: <6DE68DE8-AA88-4E77-A51D-85D9CC55153A@asu.edu> References: <87eevixf20.fsf@londo.h.r0tty.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37615) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ixbNK-00081p-QP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:50:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ixbNJ-0006SA-D4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:50:42 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]:37520) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ixbNJ-0006Pw-7U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:50:41 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id p14so3778022pfn.4 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:50:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87eevixf20.fsf@londo.h.r0tty.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andreas Rottmann Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi Andreas, > On Jan 29, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Andreas Rottmann wrote: >=20 > I'm a new to Guix, and am not sure what you mean by "safely" and > "unwanted store outputs". Running `cargo test` takes the crate source, > and the closure of any `dependencies` and `dev-dependencies`, and > produces no real artifacts that make sense to put in the store, as far > as I can see. The only noteworthy artifact is the stdout/stderr ouput > produced, as well as the exit status, but I guess that's not relevant to > the store. Oh I could see how =E2=80=9Csafely=E2=80=9D would be confusing. I meant that= we would not populate anything in the store as you suggest. > Having tests run would be great: it's a service to the Rust ecosystem, > and can also help catch issues in packaging, as was already pointed > out. How likely catching issues is depends on the testsuite quality of > the crate in question, but that's not at all an argument against running > tests, of course! Agreed. > This may have come across wrong: I just wanted to point out that it may > mean more packaging effort, but it seems Guix is in a good position here > already. Ah yeah I probably came across wrong, too. You are definitely right that the= re will be more packaging effort. I think at some point it should get easier= once the popular test dependencies get in. What do you think? John=