Hi Maxim,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Ludovic,
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>>>> The issue seems to be with the serialization of the
>>>>> <namespace-configuration> object nested in the <dovecot-configuration>
>>>>> record.  I tried this at the REPL:
>>>>>
>>>>> scheme@(guile-user)> ,m (gnu services mail)
>>>>> scheme@(gnu services mail)> (namespace-configuration (name "inbox"))
>>>>> $8 = #<<namespace-configuration> name: "inbox" type: "private"
>>>>> separator: "" prefix: "" location: "" inbox?: #f hidden?: #f
>>>>> list?: #t subscriptions?: #t mailboxes: () %location: #f>
>>>>> scheme@(gnu services mail)> (serialize-configuration $8 namespace-configuration-fields)
>>>>> name=inbox
>>>>> type=private
>>>>> separator=
>>>>> prefix=
>>>>> location=#f
>>>>
>>>> The location here should probably be empty rather than `#f' no? It looks
>>>> as though the value is coming from the internal %location, rather than
>>>> the user-provided location.
>>
>> Uh.
>>
>>>> I'll if I can find anything the macro, it looks quite complex to me :-).
>>>
>>> It's not only to you, if that helps.  It's rather... intimidating ^^'.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Ludovic, would you have an idea of where the %location field or its
>>> CONFIGURATION-location accessor come into play?
>>
>> We have this:
>>
>>          (define-record-type* #,(id #'stem #'< #'stem #'>)
>>            stem
>>            #,(id #'stem #'make- #'stem)
>>            #,(id #'stem #'stem #'?)
>>            #,@(map (lambda (name getter def)
>>                      #`(#,name #,getter (default #,def)
>>                                (sanitize
>>                                 #,(id #'stem #'validate- #'stem #'- name))))
>>                    #'(field ...)
>>                    #'(field-getter ...)
>>                    #'(field-default ...))
>>            (%location #,(id #'stem #'stem #'-location)
>>                       (default (and=> (current-source-location)
>>                                       source-properties->location))
>>                       (innate)))
>>
>> That generates two accessors called ‘namespace-configuration-location’.
>> The second one shadows the first one.
>
> Yes.  You didn't address my question directly though, so let me ask it
> again: where is this %location field access (named "location") used?  It
> seems nowhere.  Thus, we can simply rename it without impacting
> anything, right (except theoretical usages in the wild, since in the
> API).
>
>> With commit 44554e7133aa60e1b453436be1e80394189cabd9, the second one
>> is the “wrong” one: ‘namespace-configuration-location’ now returns the
>> ‘%location’ field, not the user-specified ‘location’ field.  (I
>> reported that issue in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/48284>.)
>>
>> What do you think of reverting 44554e7133aa60e1b453436be1e80394189cabd9?
>
> No.  If we revert something, it won't be that whole commit, but just the
> moving of the field in the define-configuration produced record.

If we don't have an obvious solution to the issue and it may need more
time, how do you feel about reverting the changes? Unless there is a
work around that could be applied until a nicer more permanent solution
is found (although those temporary fixes do tend to stick around
sometimes :-) ).

Thanks,
Pierre