crash: guix build -S foo --with-source=bla

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
6 participants
  • Josselin Poiret
  • Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski
  • Maxime Devos
  • Ricardo Wurmus
  • Vincent Legoll
  • zimoun
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Ricardo Wurmus
Severity
normal

Debbugs page

R
R
Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 19 Sep 2017 05:09
(name . 'bug-guix@gnu.org')(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
idjwp4uvqim.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net
The command “guix build -S guile-git --with-source=guile-git” crashes
instead of failing gracefully:

Toggle snippet (36 lines)
rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in code: git clone https://gitlab.com/guile-git/guile-git.git
Cloning into 'guile-git'...
remote: Counting objects: 906, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (268/268), done.
remote: Total 906 (delta 634), reused 895 (delta 630)
Receiving objects: 100% (906/906), 243.62 KiB | 136.00 KiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (634/634), done.
rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in code: cd guile-git
rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in guile-git: git reset --hard 969514a
HEAD is now at 969514a switch to using set-pointer-finalizer!
rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in guile-git: cd ..
rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in code: guix build -S guile-git --with-source=guile-git
Backtrace:
9 (primitive-load "/gnu/store/04gdnvw7k8mnpzs9ig5kwmblzvgkxm4a-guix-0.13.0-1.a6d7…")
In guix/ui.scm:
1331:12 8 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
837:9 7 (catch _ _ #<procedure 7f11d55d88c0 at guix/ui.scm:448:2 (key c)> _)
837:9 6 (catch _ _ #<procedure 7f11d55d88d8 at guix/ui.scm:536:6 (key proc format-stri…> …)
In guix/scripts/build.scm:
725:14 5 (_)
In guix/ui.scm:
633:8 4 (show-what-to-build #<build-daemon 256.97 2832e10> ("/gnu/store/07g069ka7l45f…") …)
In guix/derivations.scm:
307:18 3 (substitution-oracle #<build-daemon 256.97 2832e10> ("/gnu/store/07g069ka7l45…") …)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
466:18 2 (fold #<procedure 4028de0 at guix/derivations.scm:307:24 (drv result)> () ("/g…"))
In guix/derivations.scm:
308:38 1 (_ "/gnu/store/07g069ka7l45f91npb8qv4j1kvi0y7m7-guile-git" ())
606:7 0 (derivation->output-paths "/gnu/store/07g069ka7l45f91npb8qv4j1kvi0y7m7-guile-git")

guix/derivations.scm:606:7: In procedure derivation->output-paths:
guix/derivations.scm:606:7: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): "/gnu/store/07g069ka7l45f91npb8qv4j1kvi0y7m7-guile-git"
rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in code:

-- Ricardo
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 24 Feb 2021 16:34
(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)(address . 28510@debbugs.gnu.org)
86a6rtkmsh.fsf@gmail.com
Hi,

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 14:09, Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> wrote:
Toggle quote (5 lines)
> The command “guix build -S guile-git --with-source=guile-git” crashes
> instead of failing gracefully:
>
> rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in code: git clone https://gitlab.com/guile-git/guile-git.git

[...]

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> rwurmus@bimsb-sys02 in code: guix build -S guile-git --with-source=guile-git
> Backtrace:

Still failing. In ’compute-derivation’, this

(s
(list (package-source-derivation store s)))))

returns a list of string instead of a derivation, so then

(for-each show-derivation-outputs drv)

fails because it expects a derivation or a derivation-input (see in
(guix ui)).

Well, I am not sure where the error should be handled. In (guix ui) and
in (guix scripts build)? WDYT?


Cheers,
simon
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 24 Mar 2021 14:59
control message for bug #28510
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
864kh0b4d2.fsf@gmail.com
tags 28510 + easy
quit
J
J
Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski wrote on 19 Sep 2022 10:38
crash: guix build -S foo --with-source=bla
(address . 28510@debbugs.gnu.org)
d566d759-38d7-849e-d067-35e207359210@korwin-zmijowski.fr
Hello,

Today, I followed this steps to try to reproduce :

jeko@slim guix ±|master ✗|→ git pull
jeko@slim guix ±|master ✗|→ guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
[dev] jeko@slim guix ±|master ✗|→ make
[dev] jeko@slim guix ±|master ✗|→ git clone
[dev] jeko@slim guix ±|master ✗|→ ./pre-inst-env guix build -S guile-git
--with-source=/tmp/guile-git
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10 16 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In unknown file:
          15 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7f7b1c56f2e0>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    724:2 14 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle?>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8 13 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7f7b1c574c80>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
   2263:7 12 (run-guix . _)
  2226:10 11 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10 10 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In guix/status.scm:
    815:4  9 (call-with-status-report _ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10  8 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In guix/store.scm:
   656:37  7 (thunk)
   1295:8  6 (call-with-build-handler _ _)
   1295:8  5 (call-with-build-handler #<procedure 7f7b19ae5c90 at g?> ?)
In guix/scripts/build.scm:
   808:26  4 (_)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9  3 (for-each #<procedure show-derivation-outputs (derivat?> ?)
In guix/ui.scm:
    907:2  2 (show-derivation-outputs _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1685:16  1 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
  1685:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching pattern"
"/gnu/store/wgxcw7j7d45n3z3g5rswjj1hf393abl0-guile-git")'.

So, still failing but I don't get the same error… Is it valid according
to the bug declaration ? I'm not sure haha

--
Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski

GPG: 036B 4D54 B7B4 D6C8 DA62 2746 700F 5E0C CBB2 E2D1
Attachment: file
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 19 Sep 2022 11:44
229c1399-ce4b-b942-1bae-deea501f1c48@telenet.be
On 19-09-2022 19:38, Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski wrote:
Toggle quote (7 lines)
> Hello,
>
> Today, I followed this steps to try to reproduce : [...]'.
>
> So, still failing but I don't get the same error… Is it valid according
> to the bug declaration ? I'm not sure haha
>
Here is a simpler reproducer for that error:
file a.scm:
(use-modules (gnu packages) (guix packages) (guix gexp))
(package
(inherit (specification->package "hello"))
(source (local-file "a.scm")))
guix build -f a.scm --source
Greetings,
Maxime.
Attachment: OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
J
J
Josselin Poiret wrote on 20 Sep 2022 02:19
87k05y2yjc.fsf@jpoiret.xyz
Hi everyone,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:
Toggle quote (10 lines)
> Here is a simpler reproducer for that error:
>
> file a.scm:
> (use-modules (gnu packages) (guix packages) (guix gexp))
> (package
> (inherit (specification->package "hello"))
> (source (local-file "a.scm")))
>
> guix build -f a.scm --source

The issue is that package-source-derivation in guix/packages.scm doesn't
actually always yield a derivation, since lower-object isn't guaranteed
to do that: here the gexp compiler for local-file only returns a string
denoting the file path of the interned store file. `guix build` relies
on the (wrong) assumption that everything that it will build will end up
being a derivation in some way or another, so just calls
show-derivation-outputs on that, which then errors as above.

build-derivations, contrary to its name, can also pass simple file names
to build-things, and since the file will already be interned in the
store at that point, it won't need to do anything, and there won't be
any errors there.

The simple fix would be to add another band-aid cond at the
show-derivation-outputs call in build.scm, but it doesn't seem to be
enough in the long term.

What do people think?

--
Josselin Poiret
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 20 Sep 2022 10:25
86a66u0xhr.fsf@gmail.com
Hi,

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 at 11:19, Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> wrote:

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> The simple fix would be to add another band-aid cond at the
> show-derivation-outputs call in build.scm, but it doesn't seem to be
> enough in the long term.

Well, I would add an error handler; as proposed [1]. :-) Because does
“guix build foo --source --with-source=bla” make sense? What is the
use-case for such command?



Cheers,
simon
J
J
Josselin Poiret wrote on 20 Sep 2022 12:42
87h7113k9a.fsf@jpoiret.xyz
Hi Simon,

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

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Well, I would add an error handler; as proposed [1]. :-) Because does
> “guix build foo --source --with-source=bla” make sense? What is the
> use-case for such command?

My bad, I didn't see the previous discussion on the subject. To me, the
lack of generality would be unexpected: if I have a package with a
source, I expect to be able to get that source, whatever the source may
be. Maxime's minimal example shows that it could happen for a variety
of different reasons, not just a --with-source= flag. I don't know what
a proper fix for it would be though, since we're passing things around
that we pretend are derivations but are not, and in many places.

Best,
--
Josselin Poiret
J
J
jeremy wrote on 7 Oct 2022 01:41
(name . Josselin Poiret)(address . dev@jpoiret.xyz)
565ee080af7ef230e1c769bcfed440c2@korwin-zmijowski.fr
Le 2022-09-20 21:42, Josselin Poiret a écrit :
Toggle quote (20 lines)
> Hi Simon,
>
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Well, I would add an error handler; as proposed [1]. :-) Because does
>> “guix build foo --source --with-source=bla” make sense? What is the
>> use-case for such command?
>
> My bad, I didn't see the previous discussion on the subject. To me,
> the
> lack of generality would be unexpected: if I have a package with a
> source, I expect to be able to get that source, whatever the source may
> be. Maxime's minimal example shows that it could happen for a variety
> of different reasons, not just a --with-source= flag. I don't know
> what
> a proper fix for it would be though, since we're passing things around
> that we pretend are derivations but are not, and in many places.
>
> Best,

Hi !

I feel not able to take decision about the proper way right now.
So as a step forward I wrote a test to capture the behavior expected.
Please have a look at it as it's the starting point for me.
Next, I can implement the error handler, making the previous test to
pass.
As the test checks the behaviour, it will let enough space to change
implementation later without invalitating the test.

Cheers,
Jérémy
(define-module (tests scripts build) #:use-module (srfi srfi-64) #:use-module (ice-9 exceptions) #:use-module (guix scripts build) #:use-module (srfi srfi-34)) (test-begin "scripts") (define DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH "/tmp/a.scm") (define (create-dummy-definition) (call-with-output-file DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH (lambda (port) (format port "(use-modules (gnu packages) (guix packages) (guix gexp)) (package (inherit (specification->package \"hello\")) (source (local-file \"a.scm\")))")))) (define (delete-dummy-definition) (delete-file DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH)) (test-group-with-cleanup "build" (create-dummy-definition) (test-equal "package definition as only source" "/gnu/store/7mnkrg9bmybgyf1dn5n67di6ng6qvhkz-a.scm" (guard (ex ((exception? ex) #f)) (guix-build "-f" DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH "--source"))) (delete-dummy-definition)) (test-end "scripts")
Z
Z
zimoun wrote on 8 Oct 2022 06:52
86mta6tob5.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Jérémy,

On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 at 10:41, jeremy@korwin-zmijowski.fr wrote:

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> I feel not able to take decision about the proper way right now.
> So as a step forward I wrote a test to capture the behavior expected.
> Please have a look at it as it's the starting point for me.
> Next, I can implement the error handler, making the previous test to
> pass.
> As the test checks the behaviour, it will let enough space to change
> implementation later without invalitating the test.

Nice to start by the test! :-)

Toggle quote (30 lines)
> (define-module (tests scripts build)
> #:use-module (srfi srfi-64)
> #:use-module (ice-9 exceptions)
> #:use-module (guix scripts build)
> #:use-module (srfi srfi-34))
>
> (test-begin "scripts")
>
> (define DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH "/tmp/a.scm")
>
> (define (create-dummy-definition)
> (call-with-output-file DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH
> (lambda (port)
> (format port
> "(use-modules (gnu packages) (guix packages) (guix gexp)) (package (inherit (specification->package \"hello\")) (source (local-file \"a.scm\")))"))))
>
> (define (delete-dummy-definition)
> (delete-file DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH))
>
> (test-group-with-cleanup "build"
>
> (create-dummy-definition)
>
> (test-equal "package definition as only source"
> "/gnu/store/7mnkrg9bmybgyf1dn5n67di6ng6qvhkz-a.scm"
> (guard
> (ex
> ((exception? ex) #f))
> (guix-build "-f" DUMMY_DEFINITION_PATH "--source")))

Well, this test looks good to me. However, I would lower what the
procedure under test. For instance, package-source-derivation in
guix/packages.scm or show-derivation-outputs, as Josselin pointed [1].


Toggle quote (6 lines)
>
> (delete-dummy-definition))
>
> (test-end "scripts")


Cheers,
simon
V
V
Vincent Legoll wrote on 22 Jun 09:54 -0700
crash: guix build -S foo --with-source=bla
CAEwRq=rchX9JfKo2M7pWUYtguNRrZGOeWQqSrcRZ9xNCr-fY7A@mail.gmail.com
Hello,

Looking at the comments in this issue, and the commenters list,
I propose to remove the "easy" tag, if the issue is still there.

WDYT ?

--
Vincent Legoll
Attachment: file
V
V
Vincent Legoll wrote on 22 Jun 11:27 -0700
CAEwRq=qZAn9=dYsPhK0ijW1awzJR+BFnb7LWmKRkEKEjGgcMpw@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 4:54 PM Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com>
wrote:

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Looking at the comments in this issue, and the commenters list,
> I propose to remove the "easy" tag, if the issue is still there.
>

Looks like it is, the above reproducer from Maxime is still failing:
[...]
Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no matching pattern"
"/gnu/store/kp25y6nll418j0l5kissbbvynl47mzhz-a.scm")'.

--
Vincent Legoll
Attachment: file
S
S
Simon Tournier wrote on 10 Jul 11:26 -0700
Re: bug#28510: crash: guix build -S foo --with-source=bla
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)(address . 28510@debbugs.gnu.org)
875xtdgl1v.fsf@gmail.com
tags 28510 - easy
quit
S
S
Simon Tournier wrote on 10 Jul 11:32 -0700
(name . Vincent Legoll)(address . vincent.legoll@gmail.com)(address . 28510@debbugs.gnu.org)
8734ohgksb.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Vincent,

On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 at 16:54, Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com> wrote:

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> Looking at the comments in this issue, and the commenters list,
> I propose to remove the "easy" tag, if the issue is still there.

I removed the tag easy. Well, I still think it’s an easy fix because to
me the issue is not the failure of “guix build --source foo
--with-source=bar” but the poor error handling. However, if the aim to
be able to pass such command-line, then indeed that’s not easy because
it’s about some guarantee that the transformation is sound and that’s
hard for the generic case, IMHO.

Cheers,
simon
V
V
Vincent Legoll wrote on 10 Jul 13:28 -0700
(name . Simon Tournier)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)(address . 28510@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAEwRq=rMa2tR=q_uzXzvE=jw_B92Y6s+p2f6N15fyt1+pfDXhg@mail.gmail.com
Hello Simon,

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:40 PM Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
wrote:

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> I removed the tag easy.


Thanks


Toggle quote (8 lines)
> Well, I still think it’s an easy fix because to
> me the issue is not the failure of “guix build --source foo
> --with-source=bar” but the poor error handling. However, if the aim to
> be able to pass such command-line, then indeed that’s not easy because
> it’s about some guarantee that the transformation is sound and that’s
> hard for the generic case, IMHO.
>

Well let's hope few such easy bugs linger for so long without being fixed
;-)

--
Vincent Legoll
Attachment: file
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 28510@patchwise.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 28510
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