tests/lint.scm fails building guix with guile-2.2

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
3 participants
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Vagrant Cascadian
  • zimoun
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Vagrant Cascadian
Severity
normal
V
V
Vagrant Cascadian wrote on 20 Nov 2020 01:35
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87y2iwvp9d.fsf@yucca
I'm exploring building with guile 2.2 because guile-gnutls built with
guile 3.0 is only available in experimental, and even there, missing for
arm64.

From tests/lint.log:

test-name: archival: missing content
location: /build/guix-EdK9LP/guix-1.2.0~rc2/tests/lint.scm:921
source:
+ (test-assert
+ "archival: missing content"
+ (let* ((origin
+ (origin
+ (method url-fetch)
+ (sha256 (make-bytevector 32))))
+ (warnings
+ (with-http-server
+ '((404 "Not archived."))
+ (parameterize
+ ((%swh-base-url (%local-url)))
+ (check-archival
+ (dummy-package "x" (source origin)))))))
+ (warning-contains? "not archived" warnings)))
actual-value: #f
actual-error:
+ (keyword-argument-error
+ #<procedure http-request (uri #:key body port method version keep-alive? headers decode-body? streaming? request)>
+ "Unrecognized keyword"
+ ()
+ (#:verify-certificate?))
result: FAIL


I haven't tried reproducing this without the Debian patches applied
which liberally sprinkle the test suites with:

(unless (network-reachable? (test-skip 1))

... but if you can spot a likely issue, I'd be happy to test it. :)


live well,
vagrant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCX7cPXgAKCRDcUY/If5cW
qrp/AQD/8lkMtonIhZwWBN+MSp/Am3BP+JlDk8Ix+RJbsmw2sQD+MKcC8TambTi8
SyhWF/aH/fnBMIY5Cj7Bi6wH3Fu2gQM=
=g6eo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 20 Nov 2020 10:32
865z60xtjq.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Vagrant,

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 16:35, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:

Toggle quote (28 lines)
> test-name: archival: missing content
> location: /build/guix-EdK9LP/guix-1.2.0~rc2/tests/lint.scm:921
> source:
> + (test-assert
> + "archival: missing content"
> + (let* ((origin
> + (origin
> + (method url-fetch)
> + (uri "http://example.org/foo.tgz")
> + (sha256 (make-bytevector 32))))
> + (warnings
> + (with-http-server
> + '((404 "Not archived."))
> + (parameterize
> + ((%swh-base-url (%local-url)))
> + (check-archival
> + (dummy-package "x" (source origin)))))))
> + (warning-contains? "not archived" warnings)))
> actual-value: #f
> actual-error:
> + (keyword-argument-error
> + #<procedure http-request (uri #:key body port method version keep-alive? headers decode-body? streaming? request)>
> + "Unrecognized keyword"
> + ()
> + (#:verify-certificate?))
> result: FAIL
>

I remember issues fixed by 722ad41c44a499d2250c79527ef7d069ca728de0
which maybe introduce a regression for Guile 2.2.

Toggle snippet (7 lines)
+;; XXX: Work around a bug in Guile 3.0.2 where #:verify-certificate? would
+;; be ignored (<https://bugs.gnu.org/40486>).
+(define* (http-get* uri #:rest rest)
+ (apply http-request uri #:method 'GET rest))
+(define* (http-post* uri #:rest rest)

Maybe it is related.


All the best,
simon
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Nov 2020 12:47
(name . zimoun)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
87sg94dzby.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (11 lines)
> I remember issues fixed by 722ad41c44a499d2250c79527ef7d069ca728de0
> which maybe introduce a regression for Guile 2.2.
>
> +;; XXX: Work around a bug in Guile 3.0.2 where #:verify-certificate? would
> +;; be ignored (<https://bugs.gnu.org/40486>).
> +(define* (http-get* uri #:rest rest)
> + (apply http-request uri #:method 'GET rest))
> +(define* (http-post* uri #:rest rest)
>
> Maybe it is related.

Yeah, #:verify-certificate? is new in 3.0.x:


Vagrant, perhaps the simplest option for you would be to skip these
tests. There’s no rush but I think we’ll remove 2.2 support in the
not-too-distant future.

Ludo’.
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 44745@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 44745
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch