Today, with the tests inside a `tests` intermingled with the
corresponding library's source code, we have a few problems:
- We have to be careful that wildcards don't end up with tests being
built as part of Nix proper, or test headers being installed as part
of Nix proper.
- Tests in libraries but not executables is not right:
- It means each executable runs the previous unit tests again, because
it needs the libraries.
- It doesn't work right on Windows, which doesn't want you to load a
DLL just for the side global variable . It could be made to work
with the dlopen equivalent, but that's gross!
This reorg solves these problems.
There is a remaining problem which is that sibbling headers (like
`hash.hh` the test header vs `hash.hh` the main `libnixutil` header) end
up shadowing each other. This PR doesn't solve that. That is left as
future work for a future PR.
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
(cherry picked from commit 91b6833686)
(cherry picked from commit a61e42adb5)
We want to be able to write down `foo.drv^bar.drv^baz`:
`foo.drv^bar.drv` is the dynamic derivation (since it is itself a
derivation output, `bar.drv` from `foo.drv`).
To that end, we create `Single{Derivation,BuiltPath}` types, that are
very similar except instead of having multiple outputs (in a set or
map), they have a single one. This is for everything to the left of the
rightmost `^`.
`NixStringContextElem` has an analogous change, and now can reuse
`SingleDerivedPath` at the top level. In fact, if we ever get rid of
`DrvDeep`, `NixStringContextElem` could be replaced with
`SingleDerivedPath` entirely!
Important note: some JSON formats have changed.
We already can *produce* dynamic derivations, but we can't refer to them
directly. Today, we can merely express building or example at the top
imperatively over time by building `foo.drv^bar.drv`, and then with a
second nix invocation doing `<result-from-first>^baz`, but this is not
declarative. The ethos of Nix of being able to write down the full plan
everything you want to do, and then execute than plan with a single
command, and for that we need the new inductive form of these types.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
