From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Regarding "Use Invoke" or "Return a boolean from phase" commits
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 13:29:24 +0200
Message-ID: <87k1ressbv.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87bmcvfy92.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38776)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1fPng1-0006SR-P3
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 07:29:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1fPnfy-0004qi-Mc
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 07:29:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bmcvfy92.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Thu, 31
	May 2018 14:58:33 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hello Mark,

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> Furthermore, it will be important for a static code analyzer to be able
> to infer that phases and snippets always return #t, so let's try not to
> be too clever about it.  We'll need a static analyzer to gain confidence
> that we can start ignoring the return values without losing failure
> reports.
>
> Quite a while ago, I hacked up a preliminary static analyzer to do this.
> Obviously it would be good to integrate something like this into our
> linter, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.  In the meantime, I've
> attached my preliminary code below.  Here's how it's used:

Nice!  It=E2=80=99ll greatly help gain confidence that the code is correct =
when
we decide to switch.  IIUC it only works for =E2=80=98gnu-build-system=E2=
=80=99, right?

If the analyzer doesn=E2=80=99t cover 100% of the packages, we=E2=80=99ll r=
ely on manual
testing as we rebuild everything anyway=E2=80=94pretty much like when we do=
 a
regular =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 cycle.

It=E2=80=99s possible but unlikely that packages that include a phase retur=
ning
#false would succeed if we ignore that return value, so hopefully we=E2=80=
=99ll
catch residual issues when we build things.

Thoughts?

Ludo=E2=80=99.