| 4 May 2023 |
 cole-h | Cool | 22:14:35 |
 raitobezarius | I mean I'm not aware of the performance constraints of ofborg, but I believe it's probably negligible? | 22:15:03 |
| cole-h | Not necessarily constraints, but when you start evaluating every PR on all of Nixpkgs, slowdowns can be noticeable | 22:16:00 |
| raitobezarius | Of course | 22:16:10 |
| cole-h | I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but it doesn't look immediately flawed, as long as performance doesn't massively regress :P | 22:18:35 |
| raitobezarius | :) | 22:18:52 |
| raitobezarius | let me know | 22:18:55 |
| raitobezarius | I wished we could just run performance testing without setting the whole broker/worker stuff :D | 22:19:13 |
| 5 May 2023 |
| raitobezarius | https://github.com/NixOS/ofborg/pull/562/files interesting PR to revive | 20:40:39 |
| 6 May 2023 |
 Lily Foster | Ofborg's ofborg-eval-package-list-no-aliases check is still missing a lot of alias usage (see https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/230188#pullrequestreview-1415772214)
I notice that adding --drv-path to the command here https://github.com/NixOS/ofborg/blob/0f34038feb9b0ae9959c865608700c91d57b2590/ofborg/src/tasks/eval/nixpkgs.rs#L455 lets it catch those, but obviously that makes it a more expensive eval (since it has to actually evaluate the entire drvs)
Is there a better way we can detect alias usage instead of having it pass PRs that fail with allowAliases = false?
| 14:13:15 |
| Lily Foster | (I am also happy to open a PR to add --drv-path to that check, and just discuss it there. I just don't know much ofborg and idk how reasonable that solution is) | 14:17:17 |
 Vladimír Čunát | The most expensive checks that I'm aware of running anywhere need around 36G RAM: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/227945 | 14:53:11 |
| Vladimír Čunát | * The most expensive eval checks that I'm aware of running anywhere need around 36G RAM: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/227945 | 14:53:30 |
| Lily Foster | I suppose I could try to do some local comparisons later to see what the performance impact would be. Because at least I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near that. It still runs in only a few seconds on my laptop without too extreme memory requirements | 14:55:24 |
| 9 May 2023 |
 hexa | ofborg goes 📈 | 19:28:43 |
|  Weijia joined the room. | 20:19:42 |
| 10 May 2023 |
|  ElvishJerricco joined the room. | 20:01:38 |
| 11 May 2023 |
|  linj joined the room. | 12:16:32 |
| linj | Any ideas why "@ofborg eval" has no effect? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/230997#issuecomment-1543888808 | 12:18:00 |
| Weijia left the room. | 13:26:20 |
| hexa | likely because github stopped sending out webhooks | 14:01:01 |
| hexa | https://www.githubstatus.com/ | 14:01:15 |
| cole-h | 2023-05-11 06:31:35
Internal error writing commit status: Codec(Error("EOF while parsing a value", line: 1, column: 0)), marking internal error
2023-05-11 06:31:34
Internal error writing commit status: Codec(Error("EOF while parsing a value", line: 1, column: 0)), marking internal error
at least, complete ones
| 14:02:03 |
| 21 May 2023 |
|  bdd left the room. | 21:45:59 |
| 22 May 2023 |
|  @rasmus:rend.al joined the room. | 08:33:10 |
| 25 May 2023 |
| raitobezarius changed their display name from raitobezarius to disko in NixOS 23.11 when. | 13:32:48 |
| 22 May 2023 |
| @rasmus:rend.al | Am I being a loonie, or is ofborg building the wrong commit on my PR?
If I look in the logs, I can see it building c-grammar-0.0.0+rev=424d014, when I replaced it with rev cac392a | 08:35:04 |
| 25 May 2023 |
| raitobezarius changed their display name from disko in NixOS 23.11 when to raitobezarius. | 13:37:43 |
| 27 May 2023 |
|  NixOS Moderation Botchanged room power levels. | 16:41:29 |
| 28 May 2023 |
 figsoda | ummm .. ofborg is not listening to me
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/234542 | 14:56:37 |
