Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat/nix writer #253

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

blaggacao
Copy link
Contributor

@blaggacao blaggacao commented Mar 1, 2024

  • wip: impl nix expr writer

This is a WIP patch implementing a nix writer.

I'd like to hear feedback on if we could come up with a suitable extension point that would allow maintaining this out of tree (as a plugin, maybe).

@blaggacao blaggacao force-pushed the feat/nix-writer branch 7 times, most recently from 9c1f4d0 to bf36299 Compare March 1, 2024 23:25
@lilydjwg
Copy link
Owner

lilydjwg commented Mar 2, 2024

I'm OK with adding more information to RichResult, but with regard to the nix part. Can it be done via reading the json log output? Or maybe by reading an extended format of newver file?

@blaggacao
Copy link
Contributor Author

Absolutely! That's great news about the possibility to extend the RichResult. Other than that, I have no real intention to upstream a nix-specific functionality, but it's a great way to figure out the API.

This still relies on a layer violation, to urlquoteplus vslues that come from nvfetcjer_sources, so it needs more thought and refinememt.

I'll separate the RichResult enhancemsnts into a separate PR, and then iterate further. 👍

@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ def check_version_update(
url = r.url,
)
else:
logger.debug('up-to-date', name=r.name, version=r.version, url=r.url)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is intended to make updated items standout.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see! In my use case scenario, it's the rule to only update a single item, hence users where suggesting to actually show something, because otherwise there wouldn't be any output, at all.

If not a single item is picked for update, this is less of a problem and it becomes clear that something had happened.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but I didn't expect only one item is checked except for debugging. nvchecker was written with the goal to quickly check updates for thousands of items.

Maybe we can provide up-to-date feedback when --entry is used.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good idea! I'll implement this! That makes a lot more sense!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants