nixos/qbittorrent-nox: init

[Redhawk18]

use tmpfiles instead of prescript

Description of changes

This adds a service for the qbittorrent nox web ui with some basic options for the systemd job.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[misuzu]

If I remember correctly, qbittorrent-nox will want you to accept some kind of legal agreement or it won't start. How is this supposed to be handled?

In my module I can just set services.qbittorrent.settings.LegalNotice.Accepted = true;, something like this would be great. There could also be an assert like this.

[Redhawk18]

Is the uid and gid okay? I wasn't sure if there's a way to generate it dynamically.

[Redhawk18]

If I remember correctly, qbittorrent-nox will want you to accept some kind of legal agreement or it won't start. How is this supposed to be handled?

In my module I can just set services.qbittorrent.settings.LegalNotice.Accepted = true;, something like this would be great. There could also be an assert like this.

I believe the desktop app does, But I installed this to test it on my desktop and I was never prompted once to agree to it. It's likely a bug on their end, and even if we added an assert the eula would still show up. It's not like with minecraft where you could write true to a file and have it be accepted I believe.

[Redhawk18]

@NixOS/nix-formatting The error log told me to ping you with errors.

[misuzu]

Is the uid and gid okay? I wasn't sure if there's a way to generate it dynamically.

See https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/62d1245ec1eae275edb996229585637035c02538/rfcs/0052-dynamic-ids.md#using-ids-dynamically-allocated-by-nixos

But I installed this to test it on my desktop and I was never prompted once to agree to it.

You need to run your module on a fresh machine. A NixOS test would actually be great way to make sure it works.

even if we added an assert the eula would still show up. It's not like with minecraft where you could write true to a file and have it be accepted I believe.

Why not? Adding this to the qBittorrent.conf works just fine:

[LegalNotice]
Accepted=true

It's exactly what the module I linked does.

@NixOS/nix-formatting The error log told me to ping you with errors.

The error log says this:

Please go to the Nixpkgs root directory, run nix-shell, then: nixfmt 'nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix'

[Redhawk18]

I read the error message lol, I asked because I did what it suggested and it still showed an error, but it looks like it can't find the file to begin with.

[Redhawk18]

Is the uid and gid okay? I wasn't sure if there's a way to generate it dynamically.

See https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/62d1245ec1eae275edb996229585637035c02538/rfcs/0052-dynamic-ids.md#using-ids-dynamically-allocated-by-nixos

But I installed this to test it on my desktop and I was never prompted once to agree to it.

You need to run your module on a fresh machine. A NixOS test would actually be great way to make sure it works.

even if we added an assert the eula would still show up. It's not like with minecraft where you could write true to a file and have it be accepted I believe.

Why not? Adding this to the qBittorrent.conf works just fine:

[LegalNotice]
Accepted=true

It's exactly what the module I linked does.

@NixOS/nix-formatting The error log told me to ping you with errors.

The error log says this:

Please go to the Nixpkgs root directory, run nix-shell, then: nixfmt 'nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix'

Will this override the config even if the settings option is not set?

[misuzu]

I read the error message lol, I asked because I did what it suggested and it still showed an error, but it looks like it can't find the file to begin with.

Not sure what you mean, it works fine:

% nix run nixpkgs#gh -- pr checkout -f 337109
% nix-shell
$ nixfmt 'nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix'
$ git diff
diff --git a/nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix b/nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix
index 55bd6805d4b7..cf2cfe5bdbbd 100644
--- a/nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix
+++ b/nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix
@@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
-{ config, lib, pkgs, ... }:
-let cfg = config.services.qbittorrent-nox;
-in {
+{
+  config,
+  lib,
+  pkgs,
+  ...
+}:
+let
+  cfg = config.services.qbittorrent-nox;
+in
+{
   # meta.doc = "./qbittorrent-nox.md"; # TODO remind me, since I rather write it later, than write now and rewrite later.

   options.services.qbittorrent-nox = {
@@ -9,15 +16,13 @@ in {
     dataDir = lib.mkOption {
       type = lib.types.path;
:...skipping...

[Redhawk18]

nixfmt 'nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix'

Ah I ran nix-shell -p nixfmt I didn't know there was a specific version of nixfmt just for nixpkgs.

[Redhawk18]

Are the meta.docs what are shown on the nixos wiki?

[infinisil]

Improving the message to hopefully prevent such confusion with #337577 😄

[Redhawk18]

Is the uid and gid okay? I wasn't sure if there's a way to generate it dynamically.

See https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/62d1245ec1eae275edb996229585637035c02538/rfcs/0052-dynamic-ids.md#using-ids-dynamically-allocated-by-nixos

But I installed this to test it on my desktop and I was never prompted once to agree to it.

You need to run your module on a fresh machine. A NixOS test would actually be great way to make sure it works.

even if we added an assert the eula would still show up. It's not like with minecraft where you could write true to a file and have it be accepted I believe.

Why not? Adding this to the qBittorrent.conf works just fine:

[LegalNotice]
Accepted=true

It's exactly what the module I linked does.

@NixOS/nix-formatting The error log told me to ping you with errors.

The error log says this:

Please go to the Nixpkgs root directory, run nix-shell, then: nixfmt 'nixos/modules/services/torrent/qbittorrent-nox.nix'

Hey I did some testing on this idea and it's insanely buggy and hard to get working correctly. I'm likely going to remove the ability to add settings. There's also no docs explaining the options, so it leads me to believe that the qbittorrent team views this as an internal config file. Which means they will change how data is structured without warning which would mean all settings set by us would no longer work and there's no declarative way to really stop this.

[misuzu]

Are the meta.docs what are shown on the nixos wiki?

They are shown here https://nixos.org/manual/nixos/unstable/

[misuzu]

Added some suggestions.
Also found this pull request: #287923

[Redhawk18]

I think this pr is different enough, that other pr seems very focused on all the details of a declarative system and is inactive, this is just the ground work for this service. We can always submit a new pr with those options later.

[misuzu]

It works! Added some suggestions for the documentation

[misuzu]

Right, you should also add a release notes entry for your module.

[bbigras]

It runs fine :)

Thank you very much for the module.

[nixos-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/4514

[Redhawk18]

@SuperSandro2000

[ambroisie]

The port option is going to be ambiguous when someone adds an option for --torrenting-port.

In general, I think #287923 is in a slightly better shape (with declarative config mostly done, and hardening options on the service). I would rather we merge the parts that are already working from that PR rather than deviate more.

[Redhawk18]

The port option is going to be ambiguous when someone adds an option for --torrenting-port.

In general, I think #287923 is in a slightly better shape (with declarative config mostly done, and hardening options on the service). I would rather we merge the parts that are already working from that PR rather than deviate more.

I highly disagree, and blocking my pr seems incredibility hostile to me. Like I already said in the other pr @fsnkty admitted they are unable to work on this and the pr is incomplete. I rather have a working service that doesn't have all the options it possibility could than a pr that has been open for years that is almost perfect. My pr is finished and already has 4 reviews, blocking it at this point seems like whoever was first gets to merge their pr. Not whoever has the better and more active pr with more approval.

[ambroisie]

@Redhawk18 I'm not blocking your PR, I'm pointing out that both PRs are to add essentially the same module. I did see that @fsnkty is not currently able to work on their PR, and I do appreciate you wanting to get something merged in.

But from comparing both PRs, I think yours is diverging from the first one for no reason that I can see, and I would rather we just have the same basis as I think the first PR had more reviews done to it and resolved some of those same pain points.

I said:

I would rather we merge the parts that are already working from that PR

This might have been phrased badly, but I hope my answer cleared up than I'm not blocking this PR. I do want to see it be merged, but I voiced what I think is wrong in my review (namely, the naming of the module, the port option, and the hardening).

[Redhawk18]

This might have been phrased badly, but I hope my answer cleared up than I'm not blocking this PR. I do want to see it be merged, but I voiced what I think is wrong in my review (namely, the naming of the module, the port option, and the hardening).

Fine, I renamed the port and added the hardening, but I'm not renaming the module. If you can prove qbittorrent can run over xorg which is on life support first off and work on wayland I will rename the module. The name is correct how it is now because it only uses nox, so it should be named after it.

@ambroisie

[fsnkty]

blocking my pr seems incredibility hostile to me.

nothings personal or being blocked.

Like I already said in the other pr @fsnkty admitted they are unable to work on this and the pr is incomplete.

it needs testing and some minor fixup, it's been in use by multiple people for months now including myself, qbit is a bizarre program and I simply didn't want to have the module included just for it to break in bizarre ways due to some qbit feature I was unaware of.
it's simply nicer to get stuff right in the first PR instead of messing about with stages of them and messing about with the config/settings of what people already have done.
I mean if you take a look at the Todo list it's testing, making tests and an option type left.
I hope you understand it well, though if you do id really appreciate your insight into how qbit consumes new config ^^`

I rather have a working service that doesn't have all the options it possibility could than a pr that has been open for years that is almost perfect.

take what works 100% then, no sense in nearly duplicating work and rerequesting reviews, it also creates more work for anyone who now has to work around and refine the module you've made, or argue for a change in it's config

My pr is finished and already has 4 reviews, blocking it at this point seems like whoever was first gets to merge their pr. Not whoever has the better and more active pr with more approval.

not being blocked, just please be cautious of the extra work this causes for yourself and for anyone else who wants to work on the module as it'd now make extra changes.
that PR of mine has some discussion on how to handle things like port config/setting and has afaict decent structure and good practices on stuff like service hardening, please take that into consideration at the very least, let's avoid creating extra work 😞

[Redhawk18]

blocking my pr seems incredibility hostile to me.

nothings personal or being blocked.

I still believe blocking my pr over a minor name change that implies this service works with both the ui and headless version of qbittorrent is a bad idea.

take what works 100% then, no sense in nearly duplicating work and rerequesting reviews, it also creates more work for anyone who now has to work around and refine the module you've made, or argue for a change in it's config

I had no idea until the pr had progressed far enough to be reviewed. It seems my pr has made your pr more active as well by the threat of being closer to merging. And I understand you don't want to edit my code, and rebase your pr which I understand. I'd also rather write everything myself aswell. I made this pr because I wanted this service and you were inactive, I understand you can't choose when you have time in your life for free unpaid volunteer work that gets no credit anywhere. But I believe I have been incredibility reasonable with all suggestions, and everything was progressing smoothly until now.

The reason a block offenses me so much is the amount of work I've put into this for someone on the internet to just click a reject button with a bad suggestion, and prevent this from being merged is insane to me.

[fsnkty]

blocking my pr seems incredibility hostile to me.

nothings personal or being blocked.

I still believe blocking my pr over a minor name change that implies this service works with both the ui and headless version of qbittorrent is a bad idea.

take what works 100% then, no sense in nearly duplicating work and rerequesting reviews, it also creates more work for anyone who now has to work around and refine the module you've made, or argue for a change in it's config

I had no idea until the pr had progressed far enough to be reviewed. It seems my pr has made your pr more active as well by the threat of being closer to merging. And I understand you don't want to edit my code, and rebase your pr which I understand. I'd also rather write everything myself aswell. I made this pr because I wanted this service and you were inactive, I understand you can't choose when you have time in your life for free unpaid volunteer work that gets no credit anywhere. But I believe I have been incredibility reasonable with all suggestions, and everything was progressing smoothly until now.

The reason a block offenses me so much is the amount of work I've put into this for someone on the internet to just click a reject button with a bad suggestion, and prevent this from being merged is insane to me.

it's not about my time, the differences here seem unnecessary, it's not about wanting to avoid rebasing.
blindly calling the advice of others to be a bad suggestion isn't productive.
just looking to save us all some time n effort ^^```` but responses like this are more frustrating than productive, I'll leave you to it but please don't let this enable you to hold up the other PR later on whenever it's ready.. I'd still like to just use it in it's entirety rather than mushing this seemingly pointlessly diverged work together

[Redhawk18]

it's not about my time, the differences here seem unnecessary, it's not about wanting to avoid rebasing. blindly calling the advice of others to be a bad suggestion isn't productive. just looking to save us all some time n effort ^^```` but responses like this are more frustrating than productive, I'll leave you to it but please don't let this enable you to hold up the other PR later on whenever it's ready.. I'd still like to just use it in it's entirety rather than mushing this seemingly pointlessly diverged work together

What do you want to call a suggestion I strongly disagree with, that blocks my entire pr and makes my work a waste of time? I came up with this pr by myself as something I wanted to improve to the nix ecosystem. There's no diverging of work, just because you made the pr first doesn't mean my work is a derivative. I understand I'm the bad guy because I got angry first, but maybe you would understand if you put hours into something just for someone to click block without even testing or checking out the code, or a thought into what the changes they are suggesting mean. I'm not even sure I want to contribute this pr anymore this whole process has been so terrible since I left that comment on your pr.

[fsnkty]

it's not about my time, the differences here seem unnecessary, it's not about wanting to avoid rebasing. blindly calling the advice of others to be a bad suggestion isn't productive. just looking to save us all some time n effort ^^```` but responses like this are more frustrating than productive, I'll leave you to it but please don't let this enable you to hold up the other PR later on whenever it's ready.. I'd still like to just use it in it's entirety rather than mushing this seemingly pointlessly diverged work together

What do you want to call a suggestion I strongly disagree with, that blocks my entire pr and makes my work a waste of time? I came up with this pr by myself as something I wanted to improve to the nix ecosystem.

some stronger justification for why you disagree with it, it's not a personal thing.

There's no diverging of work, just because you made the pr first doesn't mean my work is a derivative.

they aim for the same thing with different scopes, you diverge from existing work, no intentions to imply it's a derivative though I have suggested that maybe it should be in some ways.

I understand I'm the bad guy because I got angry first, but maybe you would understand if you put hours into something just for someone to click block without even testing or checking out the code, or a thought into what the changes they are suggesting mean.

these are some rude assumptions and don't invite collaboration :(

I'm not even sure I want to contribute this pr anymore this whole process has been so terrible since I left that comment on your pr.

if your goal truely is to have the basics of the module included in nixpkgs faster, rather than focusing on the few blockers on the rest of it, that's fine! it's always nice to get stuff started and to get more work included.
it's just how you went about it and the reactions to others questions and suggestions that are frustrating, you haven't said anything on why my work isn't reusable here or how it wouldnt simplify the work for all of us ( you, me, reviewers ).
I'd like to hear your reasoning etc

[Redhawk18]

if your goal truely is to have the basics of the module included in nixpkgs faster, rather than focusing on the few blockers on the rest of it, that's fine! it's always nice to get stuff started and to get more work included. it's just how you went about it and the reactions to others questions and suggestions that are frustrating, you haven't said anything on why my work isn't reusable here or how it wouldnt simplify the work for all of us ( you, me, reviewers ). I'd like to hear your reasoning etc

Because by the time I saw it a majority of it is already implemented, I'm not sure about the hardening still I would have to do a lot of testing to see if it even works well enough to include without breaking features in unexpected ways. Also are you sure you can still have an undeclarative setup if thats what the user desires or is that impossible with your pr? Can you blame me for thinking your pr was dead, there was over a month with no comments or new pushes?

[fsnkty]

if your goal truely is to have the basics of the module included in nixpkgs faster, rather than focusing on the few blockers on the rest of it, that's fine! it's always nice to get stuff started and to get more work included. it's just how you went about it and the reactions to others questions and suggestions that are frustrating, you haven't said anything on why my work isn't reusable here or how it wouldnt simplify the work for all of us ( you, me, reviewers ). I'd like to hear your reasoning etc

Because by the time I saw it a majority of it is already implemented

not the kinda justification I'm looking for, that's very personal and a "but I did this work" nothing to do with why it is or isn't better than existing work.

I'm not sure about the hardening still I would have to do a lot of testing to see if it even works well enough to include without breaking features in unexpected ways.

testing is a requirement, you shouldn't want to include work you're unsure of, you also shouldn't want to include work you're unsure about the safety of.
I've done my own testing with the hardening specified in my PR, but yeah qbit is a big thing and I'm not 100% that I haven't missed something, this is what time and testing is for. please do share ya findings if anything of note

Also are you sure you can still have an undeclarative setup if thats what the user desires or is that impossible with your pr?

not using the option is an option yeah, this discussion belongs on the other PR

Can you blame me for thinking your pr was dead, there was over a month with no comments or new pushes?

currently just do not have access to the hardware required to test or work on it 😕 not really justification to dismiss it for consideration in conversation when having your work reviewed

remains unproductive, sorry I'll be dismissing this, best of luck!

[Redhawk18]

remains unproductive, sorry I'll be dismissing this, best of luck!

My pr is better because I am active and ready to take suggestions and make changes to merge this. You are projecting your reasons you like your pr more onto me.

[Redhawk18]

@ambroisie Are you willing to change your mind about the name change before I do testing on the hardening? I rather ask now and close this than waste more of my time on a pr that won't get merged because it wasn't first.

[Redhawk18]

@fsnkty blocking me is rude after telling me my work on this pr has no value. I will be talking to the nixos owners team about this and your pr.

[Lassulus]

@Redhawk18 I think you need to calm down a little. The other PR shows still some activity and the author has shown a good deal of patience to communicate to you what are the expectations of the PR and what steps needs to be done to carry that over to the finish line. While I appreciate your motivation and energy to carry this over the finish line, just actively demanding peoples attention in an open source project is bad netiquette. We are a big project with a lot of contributors and sadly sometimes changes take time and cooperation to get into the right shape. NixOS gives you a lot of tools to locally test and develop changes without relying on upstream changes so immediate action is seldom necessary.

[fsnkty]

@fsnkty blocking me is rude after telling me my work on this pr has no value. I will be talking to the nixos owners team about this and your pr.

I blocked you after struggling too much to take the conversation somewhere productive, you're personal attacks to the expectations and assumptions of others and myself make me uncomfortable working with you.
you'll be staying blocked, threatening to take this to the "owners team" is just more hostility, continued no effort to resolve anything before involving others

if you dislike me and my comments you have every opportunity to dismiss me.

[mweinelt]

To clarify, @Lassulus response is on behalf of the so-called owners. We are the moderation team and we stand behind this message.

[Redhawk18]

To clarify, @Lassulus response is on behalf of the so-called owners. We are the moderation team and we stand behind this message.

My mistake, I asked on the nixos discord who can I talk to and they told me the nixos org owners, not the mod team.

[Redhawk18]

@Redhawk18 I think you need to calm down a little. The other PR shows still some activity and the author has shown a good deal of patience to communicate to you what are the expectations of the PR and what steps needs to be done to carry that over to the finish line. While I appreciate your motivation and energy to carry this over the finish line, just actively demanding peoples attention in an open source project is bad netiquette. We are a big project with a lot of contributors and sadly sometimes changes take time and cooperation to get into the right shape. NixOS gives you a lot of tools to locally test and develop changes without relying on upstream changes so immediate action is seldom necessary.

Thank you for responding, its my mistake for expecting things to move as fast as they do at my job, this is a totally different environment. That was just how I've been use to doing things. In my head the thought of creating a well maintained and well developed module for a service shouldn't belong in my config alone, that's why I wanted to have a pr.

I would like to extend an olive branch to @fsnkty

I believe both of us felt attacked by the other pr, I know I did. I reported you to the mod team because I felt this was a destructive road this was going down. I would appreciate it if you would accept that trying to merge my pr is in anyway hostile. Also I would like to add how my personal feelings tolds you do not matter in the context of pull requests, you can have coworkers you strongly dislike. However you still have to work as a team and work out or work around the differences you might have.

I would like to close this pr if you unblock me and I can add some of the features I like from this pr to yours as suggestions. I believe this is a solution that would make everyone happy.

@Lassulus @mweinelt

[fsnkty]

@Redhawk18 I think you need to calm down a little. The other PR shows still some activity and the author has shown a good deal of patience to communicate to you what are the expectations of the PR and what steps needs to be done to carry that over to the finish line. While I appreciate your motivation and energy to carry this over the finish line, just actively demanding peoples attention in an open source project is bad netiquette. We are a big project with a lot of contributors and sadly sometimes changes take time and cooperation to get into the right shape. NixOS gives you a lot of tools to locally test and develop changes without relying on upstream changes so immediate action is seldom necessary.

Thank you for responding, its my mistake for expecting things to move as fast as they do at my job, this is a totally different environment. That was just how I've been use to doing things. In my head the thought of creating a well maintained and well developed module for a service shouldn't belong in my config alone, that's why I wanted to have a pr.

I would like to extend an olive branch to @fsnkty

I believe both of us felt attacked by the other pr, I know I did. I reported you to the mod team because I felt this was a destructive road this was going down. I would appreciate it if you would accept that trying to merge my pr is in anyway hostile. Also I would like to add how my personal feelings tolds you do not matter in the context of pull requests, you can have coworkers you strongly dislike. However you still have to work as a team and work out or work around the differences you might have.

I would like to close this pr if you unblock me and I can add some of the features I like from this pr to yours as suggestions. I believe this is a solution that would make everyone happy.

@Lassulus @mweinelt

thankfully in this environment you are not made to deal with all co contributors, I see no conflict to resolve as you are as free to work on this as you always were, I am in no way able or even willing to block you from doing so.
you are as welcome to contribute your understanding / potential findings / etc related to qbit or my pr more specifically as always.
blocking you was not a malicious or defensive thing, just didn't want notifications in my inbox from a discussion I couldn't see becoming productive.
my attempts to understand and make suggestions for your pr clearly have not worked, none of it was ever intended to be an attack to you or your work. this is why I didn't want notifications, I just assumed I was not helpful.

I cant manage to word my concerns properly so I'll unfortunately leave it at that for now and deal with any potential future issues whenever I'm actually able to lol.

best of luck, qbit is bizarre software.

[Redhawk18]

I cant manage to word my concerns properly so I'll unfortunately leave it at that for now and deal with any potential future issues whenever I'm actually able to lol.

best of luck, qbit is bizarre software.

Communication skills are more important than any technical skill you could ever obtain, my pr is an example of that. My best wishes to your pr I hope you can make it before 30.05 releases.