[bug#38754] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: lint: Set the %link-checker-store-connection parameter.

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi Chris!

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis:
>>
>>> +    (with-store store
>>> +      (parameterize
>>> +          ((%lint-checker-store-connection store))
>>
>> Actually it means that now ‘guix lint’ systematically connects to the
>> daemon.
>
> I guess that's the effect, were you meaning this would make a better
> message in the commit?

I mean that it’s a visible change.  Before, you could run all the
linters but this one without having a daemon running; now you need a
daemon up and running.

>> I wonder if we could arrange to open the connection lazily, and to
>> somehow carry state across linter invocations.  Perhaps
>> ‘check-derivation’ should be monadic, with a field in <checker>
>> indicating that.  Sounds complicated though.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I did wonder if the code could somehow transparently be made more
> efficient. Quite often database clients manage a pool of connections,
> and when you perform a database operation, a connection from the pool is
> checked out, and then returned once you're finished. But as you say,
> this could be complicated. I think parameters can be set with
> connections, and I'm not quiet sure what the interface should be.
>
> I also did think about somehow passing the store connection in to the
> lint checker more explicitly, but I'm not sure how to generalise that.

There could be a <checker> field indicating either that (1) the
procedure takes an optional store parameter, or that (2) the procedure
is monadic in ‘%store-monad’.

#2 seems more complicated to implement that #1 though.

For #1, ‘guix lint’ could check whether:

  (any checker-require-store? checkers)

is true, and if it is, it could open a connection and pass it on as
needed.

WDYT?

If that seems good to you, I guess you can go ahead with it (let’s just
not lose our hair on it!).

Thanks,
Ludo’.