auxolotl/templates

Fork 4

feat: rust template #26

Open

liketechnik wants to merge 6 commits from liketechnik/feat/rust-template into main

liketechnik commented

2024-05-06 20:21:35 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

As discussed on the forum (Brainstorming: What should Rust support look like?), this PR adds a rust template.

This PR is far from it's final form, with most stuff being either simply unpolished yet or up for discussion (many items on the lists taken from @getchoo's excellent suggestions):

Unpolished:

drop nix-filter as a dependency
- we already have lib.filesystem that serves basically the same purpose. see Working with local files — nix.dev documentation 1
better compose cross compilation toolchains
- the current use of a function to both instantiate a toolchain and build a package is a bit messy
- clearly separating supported cross targets, the instantiation of toolchains, and the overriding of a package using the standard toolchain from nixpkgs would allow for easier iteration
- a good example of what i mean can be found in one of my repos here. it’s mainly used to create multi arch docker images from any arm or x64 machine on macos or linux
- more callPackage in general would be good here

Discussion:

location
- I opted for a rust sub-folder for now; although I think we landed on something like lang-tooling/rust in the discussion
- we also considered SIG specific template repos, but ultimately decided against them, regarding discoverability and the still to be determined exact structure of SIG repos
- considering there's already a c folder too, rust should be fine
use nixpkgs’ rust toolchain where possible and reasonable
- for a standard build, there isn’t much reason to use fenix in the first place
- this would make fenix another optional dependency, allowing for only depending on nixpkgs
- the rust mirrors fenix and similar use are also very slow for users in countries such as china. hearing from people i know, being able to take advantage of local cache mirrors is much faster and more convenient
- does it makes sense to add a second template showing how to use custom fenix / oxalica/rust-overlay / ... rust toolchains?
- if we want a second template, I'd like to remove fenix last, so that I can just copy this template for the fenix one
RUST_SRC_PATH = "${pkgs.rustPlatform.rustLibSrc}" should be set in devShells with rust-analyer per Rust - NixOS Wiki 1
- I believe this is unnecessary due to the inclusion of rust-src as part of the components that make up the dev shell's rust toolchain
examples of checks would be nice
- from the same project i linked before, i have a rustfmt check here for example
- I've added the rustfmt check
- I've also tried adding clippy, but that failed with an obscure "Permission denied" error
the structure needs some reworking
- this is mainly a nitpick about the requirement of some paths to use string concatenation. this is ugly and does have a (very minimal) performance impact in comparison to atomic expressions (i.e., standard paths)
- agreed - should the files simply keep their current names and the string concatenations replaced by their paths?
the template is quite opinionated in some additional places too:
- justfile for common tasks
- formatting (tabs instead of rustfmt defaults; further customisation of rustfmt.toml)

I'll work on the 'unpolished' parts before requesting reviews, so that we can focus on the 'discussion' part.

As discussed [on the forum (Brainstorming: What should Rust support look like?)](https://forum.aux.computer/t/brainstorming-what-should-rust-support-look-like/455/10?u=liketechnik), this PR adds a rust template. This PR is far from it's final form, with most stuff being either simply unpolished yet or up for discussion (many items on the lists taken from @getchoo's [excellent suggestions](https://forum.aux.computer/t/brainstorming-what-should-rust-support-look-like/455/8?u=liketechnik)): Unpolished: - [x] drop nix-filter as a dependency - we already have lib.filesystem that serves basically the same purpose. see [Working with local files — nix.dev documentation 1](https://nix.dev/tutorials/working-with-local-files) - [x] better compose cross compilation toolchains - the current use of a function to both instantiate a toolchain and build a package is a bit messy - clearly separating supported cross targets, the instantiation of toolchains, and the overriding of a package using the standard toolchain from nixpkgs would allow for easier iteration - a good example of what i mean can be found in one of my repos [here](https://github.com/getchoo/teawieBot/blob/e93c0907be8d2169d2fd66e4d35ebac72528290f/nix/docker.nix#L9). it’s mainly used to create multi arch docker images from any arm or x64 machine on macos or linux - more callPackage in general would be good here Discussion: - [x] location - I opted for a `rust` sub-folder for now; although I think we landed on something like `lang-tooling/rust` in the discussion - we also considered SIG specific template repos, but ultimately decided against them, regarding discoverability and the still to be determined exact structure of SIG repos - considering there's already a `c` folder too, `rust` should be fine - [ ] use nixpkgs’ rust toolchain where possible and reasonable - for a standard build, there isn’t much reason to use fenix in the first place - this would make fenix another optional dependency, allowing for only depending on nixpkgs - the rust mirrors fenix and similar use are also very slow for users in countries such as china. hearing from people i know, being able to take advantage of local cache mirrors is much faster and more convenient - does it makes sense to add a second template showing how to use custom fenix / oxalica/rust-overlay / ... rust toolchains? - if we want a second template, I'd like to remove fenix last, so that I can just copy this template for the fenix one - [ ] RUST_SRC_PATH = "${pkgs.rustPlatform.rustLibSrc}" should be set in devShells with rust-analyer per [Rust - NixOS Wiki 1](https://wiki.nixos.org/wiki/Rust#Shell.nix_example) - I believe this is unnecessary due to the inclusion of `rust-src` as part of the components that make up the dev shell's rust toolchain - [x] examples of checks would be nice - from the same project i linked before, i have a rustfmt check [here](https://github.com/getchoo/teawieBot/blob/e93c0907be8d2169d2fd66e4d35ebac72528290f/flake.nix#L49) for example - I've added the `rustfmt` check - I've also tried adding `clippy`, but that failed with an obscure "Permission denied" error - [ ] the structure needs some reworking - this is mainly a nitpick about the requirement of some paths to use string concatenation. this is ugly and does have a (very minimal) performance impact in comparison to atomic expressions (i.e., standard paths) - agreed - should the files simply keep their current names and the string concatenations replaced by their paths? - [ ] the template is quite opinionated in some additional places too: - justfile for common tasks - formatting (tabs instead of rustfmt defaults; further customisation of rustfmt.toml) I'll work on the 'unpolished' parts before requesting reviews, so that we can focus on the 'discussion' part.

🚀 2

getchoo (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2024-05-06 20:21:35 +00:00

liketechnik commented

2024-05-16 16:28:54 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

So, the basic polishing stuff should be done for now.

I've amended the original to-do list with in-progress comments at the end of each to-do item; please make sure to re-read those to not miss anything.

@getchoo I would really appreciate an review from you here, you're nix code is a lot more idiomatic than mine :) I think you should also be able to push to this PR (at least I have checked GH's "allow edits from maintainers" option), so if you want, you can also just apply the restructuring without me having to understand every detail right (i.e. cut short the potential review back-and-forth between what you expect and what I make of it).

So, the basic polishing stuff should be done for now. I've amended the original to-do list with in-progress comments at the end of each to-do item; please make sure to re-read those to not miss anything. @getchoo I would really appreciate an review from you here, you're nix code is a lot more idiomatic than mine :) I think you should also be able to push to this PR (at least I have checked GH's "allow edits from maintainers" option), so if you want, you can also just apply the restructuring without me having to understand every detail right (i.e. cut short the potential review back-and-forth between what you expect and what I make of it).

This pull request can be merged automatically.

This branch is out-of-date with the base branch

You are not authorized to merge this pull request.

View command line instructions.

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.

git fetch -u origin liketechnik/feat/rust-template:liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git checkout liketechnik/feat/rust-template

Merge

Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.

git checkout main

git merge --no-ff liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git checkout main

git merge --ff-only liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git checkout liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git rebase main

git checkout main

git merge --no-ff liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git checkout main

git merge --squash liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git checkout main

git merge --ff-only liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git checkout main

git merge liketechnik/feat/rust-template

git push origin main

No reviewers

getchoo

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: auxolotl/templates#26

No description provided.