| 12 Aug 2021 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | well said 😃 | 23:49:49 |
 @kraftnix:matrix.org | cross validation on builds + distributed storage/sharing, trustix + ipfs/ca filestores can't come fast enough :) | 23:50:34 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | yeah it's lack of documentation that is holding me back as well. I'd probably have to get an understanding of the Trustix types to really get it going. But I've been practicing my Rust 💪 | 23:51:03 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | yeah, that ipfs bit especially. I was very skeptical of filecoin in the beginning because performance was abismal, but recent iterations had me impressed | 23:52:31 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | * yeah, that ipfs bit especially. I was very skeptical of filecoin in the beginning because performance was abysmal, but recent iterations had me impressed | 23:53:31 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | i'm definitely on the fence around incentivized distributed filesystems (ala filecoin), i think getting the incentives right for that is hard for it not to create an unstable system, we've had torrents/p2p transfers for a while where communities want that, i just think it needs to get easier | 23:54:49 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | i think i'm mostly on the fence because i would never put valuable data there because i wouldn't trust the system to be around in many years to come, given the prior i would use it for things like the nix cache, or other media stores, but then why even have an incentivized system for that? i think if people want to store those files they will, we just need to make it easier to share, which doesn't require a blockchain/coin imo. \rantover we should get a devos offtopic | 23:56:59 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | * i think i'm mostly on the fence because i would never put valuable data there because i wouldn't trust the system to be around in many years to come, given that prior i would use it for things like the nix cache, or other media stores, but then why even have an incentivized system for that? i think if people want to store those files they will, we just need to make it easier to share, which doesn't require a blockchain/coin imo. \rantover we should get a devos offtopic | 23:57:32 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | * i think i'm mostly on the fence because i would never put valuable data there because i wouldn't trust the system to be around in many years to come, given that prior i would use it for things like the nix cache, or other media stores, but then why even have an incentivized system for that? i think if people want to store those files they will, we just need to make it easier to share, which doesn't require a blockchain/coin imo. \rantover we should get a devos offtopic channel | 23:57:53 |
| 13 Aug 2021 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Yeah, but it's nice for ephemeral things like software artifacts. Not every cache has to be a genuine software archive like cache.nixos.org | 00:09:20 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | also back on topic for devos. is there a way to hook into digga's allProfilesTestFor tests, essentially many of mine don't really pass because profiles which rely on a specific filesystem layout (the test clears previous filesystems so that a host is bootable), so id like to include a specific provision script in the VM (I have this for my custom tests) in the allProfilesTestFor or be able to disable them so I can not run lot's of failing VM tests and just run my custom ones (that provision correctly for the test). | 00:12:47 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I know there is a way to disable them | 00:13:19 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | the allProfilesTests works nicely for simple laptop configurations but none of my fancier setups / VMs that bring in extra disks | 00:14:03 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | yeah the allProfilesTests would probably be better suited as an individual test per profile. I think I was just being lazy 😃 | 00:32:23 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | Is that now how it used to be before digga? | 00:33:00 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | I also remember having issues back then because lots of my profiles were designed not to work in isolation but only when combined in a suite :) although it's possible I was introducing test errors in another way. | 00:33:47 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | but since rakeLeaves happened I feel profiles/suites are on a similar UX footing so it's not really like that anymore, rakeLeaves actually caused me to push a lot of logic / multi-profile setups out of suites | 00:35:25 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I intended to eventually refactor it into that before it was moved into digga, but I ran out of free time | 00:38:12 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | and I am quickly running out of excuses as well 😉 | 00:39:08 |
 ultranix | https://github.com/colemickens/nixos-flake-example#warning i like colemickens flake warnings | 00:42:51 |
 @gtrunsec:matrix.org | In reply to @kraftnix:matrix.org
but since rakeLeaves happened I feel profiles/suites are on a similar UX footing so it's not really like that anymore, rakeLeaves actually caused me to push a lot of logic / multi-profile setups out of suites Right, I have the same problem as I mentioned earlier | 00:43:22 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | i'm digging around in digga trying to figure out if I can hook in from devos and modify the testScripts | 00:44:11 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @kraftnix:matrix.org
i'm digging around in digga trying to figure out if I can hook in from devos and modify the testScripts we might kill the all profile tests and replace them with a default example in devos (the template / reference implementation) | 00:53:27 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | sounds like a plan tbh, although allProfilesTests could be an enable-able option? it is somewhat useful as a check for laptops/single disk systems/simple configs | 00:54:16 |
| @gtrunsec:matrix.org | I like the idea of ​​customProfileTest , but there seem to be some problems with its logic. It should load the activated suites of the current host instead of merged in allProfilesTest. | 00:54:41 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | i couldn't see any way to short-circuit the allProfilesTest currently. Although I have a workaround which makes them all pass on my systems (by relaxing a condition), but it's not ideal, it's not like the test really "passes" in the semantic way but gets me over this hurdle. | 00:55:05 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | the implementation is so simple,though:
testScript = ''
${host.config.networking.hostName}.systemctl("is-system-running --wait")
'';
| 00:55:50 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * the implementation is so simple,though:
{
testScript = ''
${host.config.networking.hostName}.systemctl("is-system-running --wait")
'';
}
| 00:56:14 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | a quick fix would be to pass allProfiles per host through a seive so you could at least disable them | 00:56:15 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | yeah a default like host.wait_for("multi-user.target") or "default.target" might be better | 00:56:54 |
