From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e9K1L-0005It-7b for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:03:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e9K1H-0001Jf-RE for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:03:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e9K1H-0001JX-NT for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:03:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e9K1G-0006Hx-Sg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:03:03 -0400 Subject: [bug#28960] [PATCH] services: Add murmur. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <750375c6-8bc2-3e63-05d3-fd94635aa88c@cock.li> <873769qgq6.fsf@gnu.org> <87wp3kmdr4.fsf@gnu.org> <7d7f4e40-c12b-e9a6-b84d-9e6d1fc9fdf1@cock.li> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:02:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: <7d7f4e40-c12b-e9a6-b84d-9e6d1fc9fdf1@cock.li> (nee@cock.li's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2017 23:38:06 +0100") Message-ID: <87k1zcyykh.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: nee Cc: 28960@debbugs.gnu.org Heya! nee skribis: > Am 24.10.2017 um 23:34 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s: [...] >> If the above macro is good enough, we can add it to (guix records) with >> a TODO comment. That would already be better than the other options. >>=20 > > I added it for now. Personally I don't like having functions with big > TODOs like this. What would be the solution for thunked delayed fields? > Force them as they are bound in the let? The solution would be to do what the accessors do, which is to transparently force the promise or call the thunk. Well, for later! >> This makes me think that it would be good to have a unit test. Would >> you like to try writing one now (see the examples in gnu/tests/*.scm), >> or do you prefer to leave it for later? > I would like to write some tests, but right now I need to setup my guix > development environment on a different computer first. On my current > setup I have 15 gigabytes of free hard drive space and when I run `make > check-system` it fails with some 'no space left on device' message. You should probably just run the test you want, as in: make check-system TESTS=3Dbasic This is much more reasonable in terms of disk space usage. See . I=E2=80=99ll take another look soonish and apply the patches if everything= =E2=80=99s alright! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.