Re: Sanitizer of record fields?

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1276 bytes --]


On 08-09-2022 13:16, zimoun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 at 11:32, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:
>> On 08-09-2022 09:59, zimoun wrote:
>>> We could add a lint checker.  Is it a “good” idea?
>> We already have one, 'check-license'.
> Yeah, but I was talking about check if the field return the expected
> record type.  Not only for the license one.
Then maybe add more checkers, for the other fields as well? I'm not seeing
any downsides.
>>> Because lint is not always applied, a check should be done when running
>>> ’make’ or a special target.  Is it a “good” idea?
>> I suppose it is a possibility, but it adds a few seconds to every 'make':
>>
>> time ./pre-inst-env guix lint --checkers=license
>> make  all-recursive  [...]
>> gnu/packages/qt.scm:1373:13: qtshadertools@6.3.1: invalid license field
>> gnu/packages/tex.scm:11816:2: texlive-setspace@59745: invalid
> It means that “guix lint” is not systematically run. :-)
>
> I agree that the overhead on ’make’ is probably not worth.  Maybe, more
> checks could be run by the pre push hook.  WDYT?
I suppose?  Not seeing any immediate problems, but I haven't ever pushed
to the Guix repo or ever used pre-push hooks ...

Greetings,
Maxime.


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]