- 
          
- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 209
          feat: add older versions of the wrappers extension
          #1748
        
          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
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
wrappers extensionwrappers extension
      ecf641f    to
    ff4cef2      
    Compare
  
    1eb74b8    to
    db1e5e4      
    Compare
  
    0878bd2    to
    b842e89      
    Compare
  
    b500264    to
    229115e      
    Compare
  
    229115e    to
    4947f52      
    Compare
  
    ff4cef2    to
    21ade98      
    Compare
  
    wrappers extensionwrappers extension
      21ade98    to
    8c1a800      
    Compare
  
    8c1a800    to
    b8a95f8      
    Compare
  
    b8a95f8    to
    8533f41      
    Compare
  
    wrappers extensionwrappers extension
      | }; | ||
| } | ||
| // lib.optionalAttrs (version == "0.3.0") { | ||
| patches = [ ./0001-bump-pgrx-to-0.11.3.patch ]; | 
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.
We do the same change for versions <= 0.3.0, maybe there is a way to have one condition here ?
I guess it will be the same for the older versions (0.1.7 -> 0.1.14) that are not here yet.
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.
Actually I didn't patch pgrx for older versions, and I consider even in the end to not patch it for 0.2.0 or 0.3.0 and to rather add more versions to nix/cargo-pgrx/versions.json, WDYT?
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 the whole block is the same (including the cargo lock file and/or the patch) for all versions <= 0.3.0 we should only have 1 block
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.
We might want to move it to nix/ext/scripts instead so that nix/ext only contains the extensions
| @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ | |||
| #! /usr/bin/env nix-shell | |||
| #! nix-shell -i python3 -p python3 git nix-prefetch-git python3Packages.packaging | |||
|  | |||
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.
Add a few lines of documentation on what is does and maybe an example of how we can use it
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.
Yes indeed, should I put that in nix/docs/adding-new-package.md or nix/docs/update-extension.md or both?
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.
adding-new-package.md needs a complete rewrite, I would add it in update-extension.md first and do another PR/TODO for improving overall documentation (removing the old way) on how to create/update multi version extensions
6f89146    to
    fa4bd0d      
    Compare
  
    ... which is handy when it comes to compute hashes for every source tarball in a bulk :)
fa4bd0d    to
    6323605      
    Compare
  
    
This PR add a few commits on top of #1743