Skip to content
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

Consider nix installer being explicit #6

Closed
domenkozar opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 8 comments · Fixed by #7
Closed

Consider nix installer being explicit #6

domenkozar opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 8 comments · Fixed by #7

Comments

@domenkozar
Copy link

domenkozar commented Oct 19, 2021

Installer action comes with nix.conf options, different installers, etc.

One way would be to expose those via this action, but then what's the point of doing that? :)

@cole-h
Copy link
Member

cole-h commented Oct 20, 2021

What do you think about adding an install_nix input, defaulting to true, that will continue the current behavior, or if switched to false, allow the user to use their own Nix install step(s)?

I added the install-nix-action by default because it's easier to keep in sync when we have internal repos using it (as opposed to only updating one repo's install_url because it needs some new feature or bugfix and now there's 2 different versions in use).

@domenkozar
Copy link
Author

install_nix sounds good :)

because it needs some new feature or bugfix and now there's 2 different versions in use).

That makes sense, but it's surprising/out of control for those that don't maintain this action :)

I'd expect the install action to always default to the latest Nix (starting with Nix 2.4 rc1).

As soon as that changes to a bugfix release you might need internally, that's unexpected for me as a downstream user.

Thanks for explaining the motivation!

@cole-h
Copy link
Member

cole-h commented Oct 21, 2021

Definitely fair.

Is 2.4pre-rc1 the same as what you're referring to as "Nix 2.4 rc1"? (It's the pre that's throwing me off -- is it "pre-rc1" or "2.4pre" because it's not a true 2.4 release yet.)

@domenkozar
Copy link
Author

It is, sorry for the confusion (pre-rc1 is a weird naming).

@cole-h
Copy link
Member

cole-h commented Oct 22, 2021

Just an update (in case you didn't see the linked PR) -- it doesn't look like there's any way to have a conditional step in a composite action. I've filed a ticket with GitHub support to see if there's a reason for this, or if there's any chance they will support the if: key in composite action steps. They haven't gotten back to me yet, but I think I'll wait a little bit before going nuclear and just removing the step altogether (and cutting a v3).

I'll keep this issue posted on further updates.

@grahamc
Copy link
Member

grahamc commented Oct 25, 2021

If we don't hear back from GitHub by Wednesday we're going to go ahead and cut the install step out in a v3 release.

@cole-h
Copy link
Member

cole-h commented Oct 26, 2021

So, GitHub support got back to me, and there are currently no plans to support the if: key in composite actions like this one. I'll cut a v3 shortly.

@cole-h cole-h closed this as completed in #7 Oct 26, 2021
@cole-h
Copy link
Member

cole-h commented Oct 26, 2021

I just cut v3. Thanks for your feedback :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants