attribute-ordering: Add attribute ordering check #6
Conversation
We want to use `null` phases in tests to trigger some checks without changing the builder. Replicating unpackPhase would just be to annoying.
explanations/attribute-ordering.md
Outdated
| homepage = ""; | ||
| license = licenses.mit; | ||
| platforms = platforms.unix; | ||
| maintainers = []; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've noticed that a lot of expressions we've wrote have been left to right in ordering the maintainers, but we really should do the long style no?
| maintainers = []; | |
| maintainers = with maintainers; [ | |
| somebody | |
| ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, yeah. Long style everywhere that changes more than rarely. I probably would not bother with outputs unless there are more than five, or some of them need explanation comment.
| msg = '' | ||
| The ${lib.optionalString (fstInfo.group != null) "${fstInfo.group}, including the "}attribute “${fst}” should preferably come before ${lib.optionalString (sndInfo.group != null) "${sndInfo.group}’ "}“${snd}” attribute in the expression. | ||
|
|
||
| See: https://github.com/jtojnar/nixpkgs-hammering/blob/master/explanations/attribute-ordering.md |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be interesting if we could turn this into man pages for offline reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of scope here, though.
|
The ordering documented here is exactly as what seems to be, i guess logically, the preferred order. Edit: I thing I remembered that I do is *Inputs and mesonFlags (etc.) are alphabetized. I do this with a editor plugin, but I wonder if it would be a good idea to either mention that in docs. It could be nice to do that with the tool also. |
|
I wanted to add
I am still not 100% on |
Based on https://discourse.nixos.org/t/document-attribute-ordering-in-package-expressions/4887.
cc @worldofpeace