GNU bug report logs - #71111
[PATCH 0/1] services: home: Use pairs instead of lists.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Richard Sent <richard <at> freakingpenguin.com>
To: Andrew Tropin <andrew <at> trop.in>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, 71111 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#71111] [PATCH 0/1] services: home: Use pairs instead of lists.
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 17:33:57 -0400

Andrew Tropin <andrew <at> trop.in> writes:

> After rewriting from car/cdr to match-lambda in v2 of this patch:
> https://yhetil.org/guix-patches/3394b0b51f6a5a608ebcfb7a63fdc34e52fe928e.1711046203.git.richard <at> freakingpenguin.com/
>
> the format changed from pairs to lists, I didn't noticed this nuance
> during review because the documentation still says that service should
> be configured and extended with pairs.  Also, pairs are more
> apropriate data type here.  And this match-lambda rewrite will break
> downstream RDE user's setups after migrating to upstreamed version of
> service.
>
> That's why I propose to go back to pairs.
>

I'm not opposed to going back to cons cell pairs. I didn't put too much
thought in a "list of two elements" vs. "cons cell" besides the match
statement being easier to handle with a list.

Would this patch have unintended side effects? I thought the . in match
conditions had a different behavior.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> (match '(1 2 3 4)
                       ((a . b) b))
$5 = (2 3 4)
scheme@(guile-user)> (match '(1 2)
                       ((a . b) b))
$6 = (2)
scheme@(guile-user)> (match '(1 . 2)
                       ((a . b) b))
$7 = 2
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

So changing to this would allow for a home-service entry like the
following to match:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(simple-service 'my-extra-home home-service-type
                `(("bob" "bill" "bertha" "billyanne" ,my-extra-home ,my-home-2)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

From my testing, this /will/ error (yay), but not as soon as the match
would with the current code. Instead of being caught before being passed
to the daemon, it seems to be caught while lowering the invalid
file-append object.

Personally I would prefer to catch as many errors as possible before
beginning to pass code off to the daemon where possible. Generally
speaking it feels like pre-daemon errors are easier to mentally parse.

In fairness, the current code also isn't trying particularly hard to
check that "user" is a string and "he" is a home-environment or printing
a fancy error message.

Perhaps this would work?

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-module (gnu services guix)
  ...
  #:use-module (gnu home))
...
(define (guix-home-shepherd-service config)
  (map (match-lambda
         (((? string? user) . (? home-environment? he))
          (shepherd-service
           ...
           ))
         (e (error "Invalid value for guix-home-shepherd-service: " e)))
       config))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Maybe I'm just being silly. 🙂

-- 
Take it easy,
Richard Sent
Making my computer weirder one commit at a time.

Previous Next

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