GNU bug report logs - #59423
Invalid 'location' field generated in dovecot configuration

Previous Next

Full log

Message #47 received at 59423 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>, 59423 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#59423: Invalid 'location' field generated in dovecot
 configuration
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:00:58 -0500

Hi Ludovic,

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

> Hi,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>>>> The issue seems to be with the serialization of the
>>>> <namespace-configuration> object nested in the <dovecot-configuration>
>>>> record.  I tried this at the REPL:
>>>>
>>>> scheme@(guile-user)> ,m (gnu services mail)
>>>> scheme@(gnu services mail)> (namespace-configuration (name "inbox"))
>>>> $8 = #<<namespace-configuration> name: "inbox" type: "private"
>>>> separator: "" prefix: "" location: "" inbox?: #f hidden?: #f
>>>> list?: #t subscriptions?: #t mailboxes: () %location: #f>
>>>> scheme@(gnu services mail)> (serialize-configuration $8 namespace-configuration-fields)
>>>> name=inbox
>>>> type=private
>>>> separator=
>>>> prefix=
>>>> location=#f
>>>
>>> The location here should probably be empty rather than `#f' no? It looks
>>> as though the value is coming from the internal %location, rather than
>>> the user-provided location.
>
> Uh.
>
>>> I'll if I can find anything the macro, it looks quite complex to me :-).
>>
>> It's not only to you, if that helps.  It's rather... intimidating ^^'.
>
> [...]
>
>> Ludovic, would you have an idea of where the %location field or its
>> CONFIGURATION-location accessor come into play?
>
> We have this:
>
>          (define-record-type* #,(id #'stem #'< #'stem #'>)
>            stem
>            #,(id #'stem #'make- #'stem)
>            #,(id #'stem #'stem #'?)
>            #,@(map (lambda (name getter def)
>                      #`(#,name #,getter (default #,def)
>                                (sanitize
>                                 #,(id #'stem #'validate- #'stem #'- name))))
>                    #'(field ...)
>                    #'(field-getter ...)
>                    #'(field-default ...))
>            (%location #,(id #'stem #'stem #'-location)
>                       (default (and=> (current-source-location)
>                                       source-properties->location))
>                       (innate)))
>
> That generates two accessors called ‘namespace-configuration-location’.
> The second one shadows the first one.

Yes.  You didn't address my question directly though, so let me ask it
again: where is this %location field access (named "location") used?  It
seems nowhere.  Thus, we can simply rename it without impacting
anything, right (except theoretical usages in the wild, since in the
API).

> With commit 44554e7133aa60e1b453436be1e80394189cabd9, the second one
> is the “wrong” one: ‘namespace-configuration-location’ now returns the
> ‘%location’ field, not the user-specified ‘location’ field.  (I
> reported that issue in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/48284>.)
>
> What do you think of reverting 44554e7133aa60e1b453436be1e80394189cabd9?

No.  If we revert something, it won't be that whole commit, but just the
moving of the field in the define-configuration produced record.

> After that we can work on renaming the ‘location’ field of
> <namespace-configuration> while preserving backward compatibility.

Why do we have to massage the user facing record
(namespace-configuration) instead of the underlying mechanics?  The
macro should serve us, not the other way around :-).  See my idea to
simply rename/remove that automatically produced "location" accessor
which appears unused to me.  Would that work?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

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