-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.1k
tests.overriding: refactor and allow non-bool expected value #456848
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
Merged
MattSturgeon
merged 2 commits into
NixOS:master
from
ShamrockLee:test-overriding-refactor
Nov 6, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand a) why we need two test frameworks here (this derivation and
runTests) and b) why this is calledfailures.If we include this passthru, isn't it just an alternative to the below, that also attempts to print the
exprandexpectedresults usingtoPretty?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIUC, the design of
tests.overridingavoids context from test cases, which would break if we printexprandexpectedinbuildCommand.tests.overridingis essentially a collection of evaluation tests for build helpers. But we need it as a package test, and therefore the package part. The namefailurescomes from a search across Nixpkgs with keyword "lib.runTests", and 3 in 5 result arefailures = lib.runTests {.I added it as an alternative to building the package (
nix eval -f . tests.overriding.failures), which hopefully ease staging change testing. Still, having two test frameworks is kinda redundant, and we could just tell people to look attests.overriding.tests.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If there's precedent for
failures = runTestselsewhere, then I'm fine with having it. It just felt (feels) like a bit of an odd pattern.