GNU bug report logs - #30657
Add support for file-like objects to the Prosody configuration

Previous Next

Full log

Message #49 received at 30657-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 30657-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] services: messaging: Prosody config supports file-like
 objects.
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 18:38:22 +0100

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> +(define (file-like? val)
>> +  (and (struct? val) ((@@ (guix gexp) lookup-compiler) val)))
>
> I’m not fond of the idea of using @@ in real code.  :-)
>
> Could you move ‘file-like?’ to (guix gexp), with a docstring, and with
> ‘->bool’ to avoid exposing internal details:
>
>   (define (file-like? value)
>     (and (struct? value) (->bool (lookup-compiler value))))
>
> ?

I did it.

>> +(define (file-object? val)
>> +  (or (file-like? val) (file-name? val)))
>
> Do we need this predicate?  After all, all we can say is that a file
> name is necessarily a string (or a string-valued gexp), but a string is
> not necessarily a file name (IOW there’s no disjoint type for file
> names.)
>
> I suppose the configuration mechanism needs it though, right?  In that
> context it’s probably OK.

The problem is that the check happens when the user evaluates
(prosody-configuration), which allow them to know right away about type
errors, without running "guix system reconfigure".  So the user doesn't
even need a store.

Plus, not everything should go to the store.  For example, certificate
keys shouldn't, as they are private.  Thus, having both 'file-object?'
and 'file-name?' makes sense to me.

> Apart from this the patch LGTM, thank you!

Pushed as bdcf0e6fd484a54240a98ddf8b6fa433c1b9bd6c, with the
modifications you suggested.

Thank you for the review!
Clément

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.