Skip to content

lorri: use cargoHash instead of cargoSha256#325597

Merged
toonn merged 1 commit intoNixOS:stagingfrom
wolfgangwalther:lorri-cargoHash
Jul 8, 2024
Merged

lorri: use cargoHash instead of cargoSha256#325597
toonn merged 1 commit intoNixOS:stagingfrom
wolfgangwalther:lorri-cargoHash

Conversation

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluation is broken for lorri, because #323983 renamed cargoSha256 to cargoHash, but #322749 updated cargoSha256 at the same time.

Pinging @JohnRTitor and @SuperSandro2000 as those who merged the two PRs.

This is a mismatch after merging both of:
- NixOS#323983
- NixOS#322749
@emilazy
Copy link
Member

emilazy commented Jul 8, 2024

Doesn’t look like this fixed the eval error on ofborg. cargoSha256 is meant to just warn anyway, so I wonder what’s going on here.

@emilazy
Copy link
Member

emilazy commented Jul 8, 2024

Ah, I see – inherit cargoHash; was causing the error before. I have no idea why it’s still broken, though.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah, I see – inherit cargoHash; was causing the error before.

Yeah, this was breaking Check pkgs/by-name / check (pull_request_target) for me in the other PR, so that should be good.

I have no idea why it’s still broken, though.

Hm. This is just because the base branch is still broken, I guess:

The branch this PR will merge in to does not cleanly evaluate, and so this PR

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is just because the base branch is still broken

Which ofc is fine - because this PR only has the fix for it.

So, I guess this can't pass ofborg-eval before this is merged.

Copy link
Contributor

@toonn toonn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, I also needed this locally.

@toonn toonn merged commit 7c34d1d into NixOS:staging Jul 8, 2024
@wolfgangwalther wolfgangwalther deleted the lorri-cargoHash branch July 8, 2024 18:56
@Aleksanaa

This comment was marked as resolved.

@Aleksanaa

This comment was marked as resolved.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't understand how this happened either. Looking at the commits, I can't see where it was changed back to cargoSha256. Really odd, but solved.

@emilazy
Copy link
Member

emilazy commented Jul 9, 2024

I think it came from an automatic staging merge.

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.

4 participants