For example, instead of doing
#include "nix/store-config.hh"
#include "nix/derived-path.hh"
Now do
#include "nix/store/config.hh"
#include "nix/store/derived-path.hh"
This was originally planned in the issue, and also recent requested by
Eelco.
Most of the change is purely mechanical. There is just one small
additional issue. See how, in the example above, we took this
opportunity to also turn `<comp>-config.hh` into `<comp>/config.hh`.
Well, there was already a `nix/util/config.{cc,hh}`. Even though there
is not a public configuration header for libutil (which also would be
called `nix/util/config.{cc,hh}`) that's still confusing, To avoid any
such confusion, we renamed that to `nix/util/configuration.{cc,hh}`.
Finally, note that the libflake headers already did this, so we didn't
need to do anything to them. We wouldn't want to mistakenly get
`nix/flake/flake/flake.hh`!
Progress on #7876
The short answer for why we need to do this is so we can consistently do
`#include "nix/..."`. Without this change, there are ways to still make
that work, but they are hacky, and they have downsides such as making it
harder to make sure headers from the wrong Nix library (e..g.
`libnixexpr` headers in `libnixutil`) aren't being used.
The C API alraedy used `nix_api_*`, so its headers are *not* put in
subdirectories accordingly.
Progress on #7876
We resisted doing this for a while because it would be annoying to not
have the header source file pairs close by / easy to change file
path/name from one to the other. But I am ameliorating that with
symlinks in the next commit.
The old `std::variant` is bad because we aren't adding a new case to
`FileIngestionMethod` so much as we are defining a separate concept ---
store object content addressing rather than file system object content
addressing. As such, it is more correct to just create a fresh
enumeration.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Part of RFC 133
Extracted from our old IPFS branches.
Co-Authored-By: Matthew Bauer <mjbauer95@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Carlo Nucera <carlo.nucera@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Florian Klink <flokli@flokli.de>
"hash type" -> "hash algorithm" in all comments, documentation, and
messages.
ht -> ha, [Hh]ashType -> [HhashAlgo] for all local variables and
function arguments. No API change is made.
Continuation of 5334c9c792 and 837b889c41.
No outward facing behavior is changed.
Older methods with same names that operate on on method + algo pair (for
old-style `<method>:algo`) are renamed to `*WithAlgo`.)
The functions are unit-tested in the same way the names for the hash
algorithms are tested.
Types converted:
- `NixStringContextElem`
- `OutputsSpec`
- `ExtendedOutputsSpec`
- `DerivationOutput`
- `DerivationType`
Existing ones mostly conforming the pattern cleaned up:
- `ContentAddressMethod`
- `ContentAddressWithReferences`
The `DerivationGoal::derivationType` field had a bogus initialization,
now caught, so I made it `std::optional`. I think #8829 can make it
non-optional again because it will ensure we always have the derivation
when we construct a `DerivationGoal`.
See that issue (#7479) for details on the general goal.
`git grep 'Raw::Raw'` indicates the two types I didn't yet convert
`DerivedPath` and `BuiltPath` (and their `Single` variants) . This is
because @roberth and I (can't find issue right now...) plan on reworking
them somewhat, so I didn't want to churn them more just yet.
Co-authored-by: Eelco Dolstra <edolstra@gmail.com>
Whereas `ContentAddressWithReferences` is a sum type complex because different
varieties support different notions of reference, and
`ContentAddressMethod` is a nested enum to support that,
`ContentAddress` can be a simple pair of a method and hash.
`ContentAddress` does not need to be a sum type on the outside because
the choice of method doesn't effect what type of hashes we can use.
Co-Authored-By: Cale Gibbard <cgibbard@gmail.com>
In other words, use a plain `ContentAddress` not
`ContentAddressWithReferences` for `DerivationOutput::CAFixed`.
Supporting fixed output derivations with (fixed) references would be a
cool feature, but it is out of scope at this moment.
With the switch to C++20, the rules became more strict, and we can no
longer initialize base classes. Make them comments instead.
(BTW
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2287r1.html
this offers some new syntax for this use-case. Hopefully this will be
adopted and we can eventually use it.)
I had started the trend of doing `std::visit` by value (because a type
error once mislead me into thinking that was the only form that
existed). While the optomizer in principle should be able to deal with
extra coppying or extra indirection once the lambdas inlined, sticking
with by reference is the conventional default. I hope this might even
improve performance.
In particular, this means that derivations can output derivations. But
that ramification isn't (yet!) useful as we would want, since there is
no way to have a dependent derivation that is itself a dependent
derivation.
