Robert Hensing (roberth): hmm, I assumed that you can't reach across subflakes without going through the inputs, is that not true? It's why I thought you could just find all flake.nix files from the PWD and since inputs are static, see which is the outermost flake.nix that refers to another in the subtree and add that to the store. Which I think is what you effectively suggest at the end? But from what you're saying it seems that inside a git flake you are able to reach with paths across subflakes, without going through inputs? In that case, I think the proposition with having to explicitly go through inputs to reach to other super/subflakes sounds reasonable? And if that turns out to work satisfactorily, then it could be extended to other kinds of flakes, like git?

Anyway thanks for response — it seems that subflakes are not quite ready for more complex use-cases yet, I'll guess I'll do something simpler for now and watch issue 7730 for updates, so I can at least help with testing.

In reply to @Las:matrix.org
there really needs to be better docs on how to calculate placeholder paths

In reply to @Las:matrix.org
is this for CA too?

In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
I have explored a concept before where a flake could be composed of multiple sub-components that had inter-related inputs. It is different from what are normally called sub-flakes, but I think is closer to what people are expecting them to be. I called it "crystals" and the initial proof-of-concept was a relatively simple matter of searching through a source tree for all crystal.nix files and merging their inputs into the root's lockfile: https://github.com/flox/nix/commit/8a684bdee6009e6375e855ed79bb9c532dae805c .