!jtzdZrQSXtEpeGtzAn:nixos.org

Testing with Nix

102 Members
26 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
27 Feb 2024
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️Not quite19:57:15
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️It's stupid19:57:19
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️It takes a dict19:57:21
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️Always19:57:23
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️ But if the dict has startCommand, it'll use that 19:57:33
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️And if it has anything else, it'll use THAT THING19:57:41
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceThen I'm not sure this deprecation warning counts? If there was no possible way to get that functionality without using startCommand…19:58:18
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceWhat I mean is that, I don't think we can expect users to have followed an unactionable deprecation warning.19:58:46
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️No19:59:40
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️I mean19:59:43
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️ If you do create_machine({"startCommand": "..."}) 19:59:52
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️You don't get the warning19:59:55
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️And you get the right thing done20:00:01
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceOh, I see.20:00:15
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️ And after my PR you just need to change that to create_machine(start_command="...") now 20:00:20
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceThat makes more sense —-I thought I'd have seen the warning.20:00:26
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceRight20:00:30
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️ But if you do create_machine({"hda": "foo.qcow2"}) or whatever 20:00:37
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️That would get you the warning20:00:44
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceRight20:00:48
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️And now it would blow up20:00:49
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceYeah I agree the non-startCommand keys don't need a deprecation period then.20:01:06
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceThe reason to do a deprecation period is usually to make it possible to have some code that works with both stable and unstable. 20:01:34
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️I guess that's true20:01:45
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️I can add a hack for that20:01:48
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceAnd then remove it after branch-off.20:01:59
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceUsually we silently add the new API, wait a release, add a warning, wait a release, remove the old one.20:02:17
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceBut I don't think that's necessary here because warnings from the test driver are not nearly as disruptive as warnings from Nix.20:02:31
@qyliss:fairydust.space@qyliss:fairydust.spaceSo adding a warning straight away should be fine.20:02:49
@k900:0upti.meK900 ⚡️ @Alyssa Ross can you test your stuff against my branch? 20:15:28

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 9