> Hello. Is it possible to get better error reporting in the following
> example?
> 
> $ sudo guix system -K -L /home/vlad/Code/fullmeta-guix/channel container
> os.scm
> 
> [...]

I also face this very problem when using the "-L" switch with other
commands, e.g. `guix shell`. Is there some missed-by-us way to get
error reports from modules?

Wojtek

-- (sig_start)
website: https://koszko.org/koszko.html
PGP: https://koszko.org/key.gpg
fingerprint: E972 7060 E3C5 637C 8A4F  4B42 4BC5 221C 5A79 FD1A

♥ R29kIGlzIHRoZXJlIGFuZCBsb3ZlcyBtZQ== | ÷ c2luIHNlcGFyYXRlZCBtZSBmcm9tIEhpbQ==
✝ YnV0IEplc3VzIGRpZWQgdG8gc2F2ZSBtZQ== | ? U2hhbGwgSSBiZWNvbWUgSGlzIGZyaWVuZD8=
-- (sig_end)


On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:52:26 +0100
Vladilen Kozin <vladilen.kozin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello. Is it possible to get better error reporting in the following
> example?
> 
> $ sudo guix system -K -L /home/vlad/Code/fullmeta-guix/channel container
> os.scm
> 
> And our os.scm imports some services defined in our channel above. Should
> there be an error in one of them, however, the stack trace only talks about
> inability to find that service symbol but otherwise fails to report any
> errors that may've happened when loading modules from our -L location above.
> 
> Case in point. In one of the modules, I habitually used Clojury syntax and
> wrote:
> 
> (define foo [1 2])
> 
> (define foo-service
>   (list
>      (shepherd-service ... #$foo ...)))
> 
> (define foo-service-type ...)
> 
> Running the above OS derivation reports:
> ```
> Backtrace:
> In guix/store.scm:
> ... bt here ...
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> error: foo-service-type: unbound variable
> ```
> 
> Backtrace has all modules and files either unknown or gensymed - so not
> much use.
> It isn't wrong, but e.g. attempting to [1 2] in Guile repl would tell you
> "Wrong type to apply: 1" and loading this file would give you the location
> ... probably :)
> 
> Feels like defining shepherd services involves some dark arts and buckets
> of time when you can't tell what went wrong where.
> 
> Thank you
>