| 23 May 2024 |
 hexa | and caching? | 18:10:57 |
| hexa | if one builder has the result, can others reuse it? 😛 | 18:11:03 |
 cole-h | No, no caching between machines at this moment | 18:11:34 |
 Alyssa Ross | ah, I assumed there would be | 18:12:48 |
| Alyssa Ross | that makes me less confident it would save time | 18:12:57 |
| hexa | wondering, does haumea run on darwin? | 18:13:49 |
| hexa | that would allow sharing directly from the /nix/store | 18:14:05 |
| cole-h | No clue what haumea is, so can't comment | 18:14:38 |
| hexa | harmonia | 18:14:48 |
| hexa | sorry 😄 | 18:14:48 |
| cole-h | (Other than it was at one point? the name of the hydra db I think) | 18:14:56 |
| hexa | https://github.com/nix-community/harmonia | 18:14:59 |
| hexa | yeah, my head wandered a bit | 18:15:10 |
| cole-h | Does harmonia support GCing? The core machine doesn't have much free disk space to store artifacts, and I imagine running on every PR will fill up what little it has very quick... lol | 18:18:58 |
| cole-h | (Not much is ~500GiB, fwiw, so not "too little" either) | 18:19:26 |
| hexa | I thin not, in that I had to fiddle with the ttl in nix | 18:25:25 |
| hexa | because nix is not kind about failed substitution | 18:25:34 |
| hexa | narinfo-cache-positive-ttl = 3600;
| 18:26:09 |
| hexa | with gc.automatic enabled and no further tuning | 18:26:28 |
| cole-h | Then a follow up: is there something harmonia does better than attic? | 18:26:55 |
| hexa | the default is like a month | 18:26:59 |
| hexa | serves directly from the /nix/store, no central binary store required | 18:27:17 |
| hexa | attic with a small binary cache and aggressive gcing would work as well | 18:28:39 |
 ris_ | ahem https://github.com/risicle/nix-heuristic-gc | 20:25:16 |
| ris_ | i actually originally built that with the intention to use it on a binary cache | 20:27:20 |
| 24 May 2024 |
 trofi | I keep finding huge amount of accidental $foo.tests eval failures. An example fix is https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/314109. Looking at https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/runs/24606477687 ofborg shown it as green while it said explicitly it fails to evaluate: The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-linux: githooks.passthru.tests. Shouldn't it be at least gray in the UI? I vaguely remember it doing that in the past. | 06:08:11 |
 7c6f434c | Tests failing to evaluate is usually having no tests specified. A majority of packages failing to evaluate is something not being in the platforms. | 06:13:50 |
| 7c6f434c | Distinguishing the cases is some non-trivial work, not just switching a single constant | 06:15:26 |
| trofi | Sure, but it's so sad to see thing like:
$ nix build --no-link -f. nixVersions.git.tests
...
error: attribute 'nix_2_23' missing
Did you mean one of nix_2_13, nix_2_20, nix_2_21, nix_2_22 or nix_2_3?
| 06:15:26 |
| trofi | At least "no tests specified" feels like a simple case of changing the evaluator to discover tests with $foo.tests or [] instead of $foo.tests. | 06:16:34 |
