[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

* doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Mention commands in the check
  list.
---
 doc/contributing.texi | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index ee72b2f94d..04a4ba3e1a 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -961,6 +961,16 @@ often better to clone the repository.  Don't use the @command{name} field in
 the URL: it is not very useful and if the name changes, the URL will probably
 be wrong.
 
+@item
+Make sure your changes do not break Guix: rebuild it with
+@example
+guix environment guix -- make
+@end example
+and simulate a @code{guix pull} with
+@example
+guix pull --url=/path/to/your/checkout --dry-run
+@end example
+
 @end enumerate
 
 When posting a patch to the mailing list, use @samp{[PATCH] @dots{}} as
-- 
2.23.0

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

Hi Pierre,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 10:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Mention commands in the check
>   list.

Nice!

I propose instead this wording. Because, I am not sure that building
Guix from source is really necessary to run/check "guix pull".


--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index ee72b2f94d..8001b0aef1 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -961,6 +961,15 @@ often better to clone the repository.  Don't use
the @command{name} field in
 the URL: it is not very useful and if the name changes, the URL will probably
 be wrong.

+@item
+Make sure your changes do not break @command{guix pull}:
+
+@example
+guix pull --dry-run --url=/path/to/your/checkout
+@end example
+
+(see @pxref{Invoking guix pull}).
+
 @end enumerate

 When posting a patch to the mailing list, use @samp{[PATCH] @dots{}} as
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


Hope that helps.

Cheers,
simon

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 241 bytes --]

I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
of `make`?
I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
`guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
> of `make`?

What is the point of this advice? Check if "guix pull" is broken,
right? I think "guix pull -n --url=foo" does the job, isn't it?

> I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
> `guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.

This is another tips? Reading all the points, I feel that another
point about checking the "make" warnings and/or running the test suite
should be added. A good indication is that there is no link to
"Running the Test Suite".

What do you think?

Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
>> of `make`?
>
> What is the point of this advice? Check if "guix pull" is broken,
> right? I think "guix pull -n --url=foo" does the job, isn't it?
>
>> I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
>> `guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.
>
> This is another tips? Reading all the points, I feel that another
> point about checking the "make" warnings and/or running the test suite
> should be added.

Why not.

> A good indication is that there is no link to
> "Running the Test Suite".
>
> What do you think?

CC-ing guix-devel.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:46, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> CC-ing guix-devel.

If guix-devel is CC-ed, then let talk about the tests of "guix pull"
in the test suite. :-)

I do not find any test about "guix pull" in the test suite. I was
expecting e.g., "guix-pull.sh" or "pull.scm". Do I misread something?

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

I do not find any test about "guix pull" in the test suite. I was
expecting e.g., "guix-pull.sh" or "pull.scm". Do I misread something?

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Danny Milosavljevic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 169 bytes --]

Hi Pierre,

good idea, but I use

$ guix environment --pure guix --ad-hoc git guile-readline guile-json

(Not using "--pure" is asking for trouble in my opinion)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 101 bytes --]

Indeed.
Why would you need the ad-hoc part though?

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Danny Milosavljevic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:14:34 +0100
Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> Why would you need the ad-hoc part though?

I've added it because it didn't work without.

I *think* is was because there was a time where guile-json
was not a dependency of guix-the-package but it became
one of the guix git checkout, making the build of the guix
git checkout in a guix environment fail.
I really can't remember, though.

Some parts of the Guix build use git--can't remember which.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

Hi Danny,


On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 22:59, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:14:34 +0100
> Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> > Why would you need the ad-hoc part though?
>
> I've added it because it didn't work without.

Recently?


> I *think* is was because there was a time where guile-json
> was not a dependency of guix-the-package but it became
> one of the guix git checkout, making the build of the guix
> git checkout in a guix environment fail.
> I really can't remember, though.

I remember as well something like that. But now, it is fixed: "guix
environment guix --pure" does the correct job, I guess.


> Some parts of the Guix build use git--can't remember which.

I do not think so.
But having Git in the environment is really helpful (switch branch,
revert, log, etc.)


Cheers,
simon

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

Hi Danny,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 20:33, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> wrote:


> good idea, but I use
>
> $ guix environment --pure guix --ad-hoc git guile-readline guile-json

I think that it is described here [1]

[1] https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/guix.html#Building-from-Git


From my point of view, the change should only concern how to test
"guix pull" by adding a bullet -- with a link to Building from Git and
 Running Test Suite.


> (Not using "--pure" is asking for trouble in my opinion)

I agree that --pure should be always added to avoid troubles.
Maybe it should be the default of "guix environment"?


Cheers,
simon

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

I've added two points as discussed here: `make` and `guix pull`.

Commits bf99d7e0e2e79935b6748afa059e7392d8e110c8 and
9fcf28205826564a05cfccba301ac3b09d17e86d.

I agree with Simon that a "guix pull" test would be nice.  I've opened
another issue for it.  See "Add test for `guix pull'".

Same with --pure being the default.  Opening another issue "Make --pure
the default for `guix environment'?".

Closing.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[zimoun]

Hi Pierre,

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 16:42, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> Commits bf99d7e0e2e79935b6748afa059e7392d8e110c8 and

This commit is incorrect. Because it implies that ./configure has been
run before.

The correct advice -- which is obvious to me -- is: please check if
Guix builds and address the warnings.


All the best,
simon

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 115 bytes --]

Acknowledged.
Fixed in da31e7d9ec11081807c6710f0f86def2372a7aff.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 75 bytes --]

And thanks for the catch!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]