bug-guix
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#18935: gexp->derivation test failure


From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: bug#18935: gexp->derivation test failure
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:20:08 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> Test begin:
>   test-name: "gexp->derivation"
>   source-file: "tests/gexp.scm"
>   source-line: 227
>   source-form: (test-assert "gexp->derivation" (run-with-store %store (mlet* 
> %store-monad ((file (text-file "foo" "Hello, world!")) (exp -> (gexp (begin 
> (mkdir (ungexp output)) (chdir (ungexp output)) (symlink (string-append 
> (ungexp %bootstrap-guile) "/bin/guile") "foo") (symlink (ungexp file) (ungexp 
> output "2nd"))))) (drv (gexp->derivation "foo" exp)) (out -> 
> (derivation->output-path drv)) (out2 -> (derivation->output-path drv "2nd")) 
> (done (built-derivations (list drv))) (refs ((store-lift references) out)) 
> (refs2 ((store-lift references) out2)) (guile (package-file %bootstrap-guile 
> "bin/guile"))) (return (and (string=? (readlink (string-append out "/foo")) 
> guile) (string=? (readlink out2) file) (equal? refs (list (dirname (dirname 
> guile)))) (equal? refs2 (list file))))) #:guile-for-build (%guile-for-build)))
> Test end:
>   result-kind: fail
>   actual-value: #f
>   actual-error: (srfi-34 #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path 
> `/tmp/nix-build-guix-0.7.14e84b2.drv-0/source/test-tmp/store/ry17r3hm48ckcchz9ls6yhd00alyiipx-foo'
>  is not valid" status: 1] a587d68>)

This can only happen if FILE in that test were deleted after its
creation and before the ‘gexp-derivation’...  which cannot even happen
since FILE remains live for the duration of the ‘%store’ session...
except if another daemon instance deletes it!

Commit 834ea02 fixes that: it turns out that tests/nar.scm was creating
the exact same store item, and then calling the GC to delete it.

I’ll update the Guix snapshot in Guix.  (In the meantime, chances are
that you can just restart the build and won’t stumble upon this bug,
which was unlikely to occur.)

While looking at this code, I fixed a small issue with caches in
000c59b.

Thanks,
Ludo’.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]