Attila Lendvai schreef op wo 29-09-2021 om 21:22 [+0000]:
> > 
[...]
> 
> > Conventionally, to emit warnings, the procedure 'warning' from
> > (guix diagnostics) is used. See e.g. (guix ci), (guix deprecation), (guix gexp),
> > (guix import ...), various modules under (guix scripts ...), (guix upstream) ...
> > 
> > Is there any reason not to use this pre-existing procedure?
> 
> in a more advanced UI it might be a different story, but in the
> current setup the only reason is to be able to assert for the warning
> in the tests.
> 
> is that worth it? shall i just user WARNING and forget about the test?

Testing a warning is emitted seems nice.  You could parameterise guix-warning-port
and use call-with-output-sting to capture the warning, and use (not (string-null? ...))
to verify a warning has been emitted.  From a quick grep, it appears
tests/transformations.scm and tests/substitute.scm are doing things like this.

Greetings,
Maxime.