| 28 Aug 2025 |
| Charles changed their profile picture. | 17:59:27 |
jade_ | this is plausibly safe. Let me file a ticket | 22:57:17 |
jade_ | https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/issues/983 | 22:58:39 |
| 29 Aug 2025 |
| Charles changed their profile picture. | 19:12:26 |
| 30 Aug 2025 |
| 522 it/its ⛯ΘΔ changed their display name from 522 [it/its][ΘΔ] to 522 it/its ⛯ΘΔ. | 14:10:43 |
piegames | Whoever touched the fromTOML tests recently, I need your help https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/4122 | 14:46:38 |
just1602 | Redacted or Malformed Event | 15:35:07 |
just1602 | In the CL where I try to bump nix 2.93.3 to nixpkgs 25.05, I get the following error and I'm wondering if I should look to drop the tests against 2.3 or allow it:
error: Package ‘nix-2.3.18’ in /nix/store/w6rvjvq81h9gsa14lbc8hpal78mhvjjv-source/pkgs/tools/package-management/nix/default.nix:156 is marked as insecure, refusing to evaluate.
| 15:44:41 |
| @dawnofmidnight:catgirl.cloud joined the room. | 15:59:42 |
emily | what's the issue? | 23:47:43 |
emily | ``tests/functional2/lang/builtins.fromTOML/in.nix` is probably not a good name for the expected-to-fail timestamps test | 23:48:50 |
emily | * tests/functional2/lang/builtins.fromTOML/in.nix is probably not a good name for the expected-to-fail timestamps test | 23:48:56 |
| 31 Aug 2025 |
piegames | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org what's the issue? Basically we have two fromTOML test folders in functional2, and another test in functional, which looks kinda duplicate but not really | 06:18:30 |
piegames | And I remember stuff having been renamed and deleted here, so I think it might be a rebase artifact (even though I never saw any conflict), but overall I'm a bit confused what the currently intended end state for those tests is | 06:19:30 |
emily | you might be thinking of https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/3917/11? | 06:20:01 |
emily | IIRC there is a weird thing where functional had one checking that timestamps work (with the experimental extension that has since been removed) and functional2 had one checking that they don't work (with the extension disabled), or something like that. | 06:20:26 |
emily | the extension is gone so all timestamp tests should be testing the failure case | 06:20:37 |
emily | I don't think there should be any strict duplicates left | 06:21:03 |
piegames | nix: error while loading shared libraries: liblowdown.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nix dev build doesn't start anymore for me (I already rebased and reloaded env and rebuilt | 07:20:20 |
piegames | * nix: error while loading shared libraries: liblowdown.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory nix dev build doesn't start anymore for me (I already rebased and reloaded env and rebuilt) | 07:20:23 |
Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | What the actual fuck:
echo "1 + 2 + 5" | nix-instantiate --eval -E 'import (builtins.fetchurl { url = "file:///proc/self/fd/0"; })' --tarball-ttl 0
| 15:00:48 |
Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | * What the actual fuck:
echo "1 + 2 + 5" | nix-instantiate --eval -E 'import (builtins.fetchurl { url = "file:///proc/self/fd/0"; })' --tarball-ttl 0
| 15:01:05 |
Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | And if the tarball-ttl isn't passed the result is cached... | 15:01:50 |
aloisw | Looks like working as intended tbh. | 15:04:16 |
Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | Well yeah, though I doubt it's by design | 15:05:11 |
Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | However this does actually expose the evaluation order. Depending on in which order thunks are forced this would produce different results hmmm | 15:06:47 |
aloisw | That's by far not the only thing exposing evaluation order. Other ways to read special files, symbol table order, … | 16:20:14 |
aloisw | It will also not work with pure eval mode, so this doesn't even look like silently breaking any purity guarantees. | 16:21:49 |
aloisw | If anything I would've expected it to fail due to some bullshit bug. | 16:22:33 |
emily | I think builtins.fetchGit with a rev could break purity. | 16:34:47 |