Gitea fetcher for flake inputs #11467

tilmanmixyz · 2024-09-09T18:43:08Z

Motivation

The current way of fetching repos from Gitea/Forgejo requires the git exectable,
this fetcher for flake inputs works like the github one by downloading the tarball

adding a gitea type to the flake inputs
usable with inputs.input.url = "gitea:repo/owner"
the default host is codeberg.org, because it the most popular
and most used gitea/forgejo based code forge.

host can be changed with ?host=gitea.instance

advantage over git+https:
git+https://gitea.instance/repo/owner requires git
while this new fetcher allows downloading the tarball
from gitea.

Context

Closes: #11135

This work is based on the already existing github fetcher

Mic92 · 2024-09-10T15:18:48Z

Actually one can just download a gitea tarball without git. You just need a new enough gitea version that implements the lockable tarball protocol. Than you can do things like this:

https://github.com/Mic92/dotfiles/blob/9544bdacad1c8c46289fbcf0b2973df5ff2a3a03/flake.nix#L19

    data-mesher.url = "https://git.clan.lol/clan/data-mesher/archive/main.tar.gz";

Mic92 · 2024-09-10T15:32:22Z

I am not sure if this allows header authentication, probably not, so gitea inputs would still be nice to have.

Mic92 · 2024-09-10T15:34:40Z

src/nix/flake.md

+  * `gitea:redict/redict`
+  * `gitea:redict/redict/main`
+  * `gitea:redict/redict/a4c81102327bc2c74d229784a1d1dd680c708918`
+  * `gitea:lix-project/lix?host=git.lix.systems`


I wonder if we actually should default to codeberg and not just make the host part of the url? This doesn't look much more complex and promotes self-hosting (which is in the spirit of gitea):

Suggested change

* `gitea:lix-project/lix?host=git.lix.systems`

* `gitea:git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix`

Maybe we should also support this?

gitea:git.lix.systems/some-subdirectory/lix-project/lix

Also some-subdirectory could become a url parameter

I agree that we should support sub-directory. Though, I'd like to keep the host argument, so the URL doesn't feel to far off compared to the existing github: and sourcehut: URL types.

* `gitea:git.lix.systems/some-subdirectory/lix-project/lix`

Also some-subdirectory could become a url parameter

What do you mean by subdirectories?

Subdirectories in the gitea repository are already supported with the dir url parameter.

I wonder if we actually should default to codeberg and not just make the host part of the url? This doesn't look much more complex and promotes self-hosting (which is in the spirit of gitea):

I don't think we should actually default to codeberg becuase. I just use codeberg and wanted to quickly simplify my flakes.

I currently have an implementation which requires the specification of the host in the url in the gitea-fetcher-explicit-url branch of my fork.
But currently it makes the host parameter useless since it requires it in the scheme.

adding a gitea type to the flake inputs usable with inputs.input.url = "gitea:repo/owner" the default host is codeberg.org, because it the most popular and most used gitea/forgejo based code forge. host can be changed with ?host=gitea.instance advantage over git+https: git+https://gitea.instance/repo/owner requires git while this new fetcher allows downloading the tarball from gitea. Closes: NixOS#11135 Signed-off-by: Tilman Andre Mix <tilmanmixyz@proton.me>

Signed-off-by: Tilman Andre Mix <tilmanmixyz@proton.me>

edolstra · 2024-09-11T18:08:10Z

Can you add a release note? Thanks!

roberth

Does this produce an impure git archive "export" tarball, or a pure translation of Git objects into a tarball, like you get when requesting a tarball for a tree hash from GitHub instead of a commit?

I believe it has the former impure behavior, which we should avoid, because it creates discrepancies between Git-based fetching and tarball-based fetching, which is highly unexpected for users, because they think locking to a commit hash is good enough - a reasonable expectation when you're not thinking of the nastiness in git archive.

Litmus test: if you could implement this with the git protocol instead of a tarball and get the exact same result, even when using export-ignore, export-subst, submodules, smudge filters, etc, then we're good.

Mic92 · 2024-09-12T14:01:16Z

Does this produce an impure git archive "export" tarball, or a pure translation of Git objects into a tarball, like you get when requesting a tarball for a tree hash from GitHub instead of a commit?

I believe it has the former impure behavior, which we should avoid, because it creates discrepancies between Git-based fetching and tarball-based fetching, which is highly unexpected for users, because they think locking to a commit hash is good enough - a reasonable expectation when you're not thinking of the nastiness in git archive.

Litmus test: if you could implement this with the git protocol instead of a tarball and get the exact same result, even when using export-ignore, export-subst, submodules, smudge filters, etc, then we're good.

Last time I checked the code tarballs in gitea were implemented using git-archive.

Mic92 · 2024-09-12T14:02:21Z

Are git archives not reproducible or what does make them impure?

roberth · 2024-09-12T14:07:59Z

This issue has an example

Unstable NAR hash for git inputs using export-subst #7596

EDIT: the problem is probably with export-ignore and submodules. The other two are probably already skipped.

Mic92 · 2024-09-16T12:44:17Z

So the issue is closed now, are submodules still an issue?

roberth · 2024-09-16T12:59:54Z

That issue was reported for the git fetcher, but this new gitea fetcher is tarball based, and gitea returns such broken tarballs if you pass the commit hash.

submodules

I've confused the default value for the submodules flag in the git fetcher. We had discussed enabling it by default, but we haven't so this may not be a concern.

export-subst and export-ignore are a problem,
submodules maybe,
smudging: probably ok.

Mic92 · 2024-09-16T13:01:37Z

Ah. Right. I mixed things up here.

Mic92 · 2024-09-16T13:03:32Z

Maybe this should be then doing a shallow git clone. Afaik the gitea token can be also used via http.

Mic92 · 2024-09-16T13:04:02Z

src/libfetchers/github.cc

+    RefInfo getRevFromRef(nix::ref<Store> store, const Input & input) const override
+    {
+        auto host = getHost(input);
+        auto url = fmt("https://%s/api/v1/repos/%s/%s/commits?sha=%s", host, getOwner(input), getRepo(input), *input.getRef());


What about http with the s? Might be used for testing.

Mic92 · 2024-09-24T05:27:20Z

So gitea does internally just do a git-archive btw, so I think the issues mentioned here, would be a problem. However could we instead not do a git shallow clone? I think this should be as fast as a tarball clone on the first download but than faster for updates. As far as I know gitea allows GITEA_TOKEN to be used for authentication.

roberth · 2024-09-24T10:14:24Z

Git over HTTP with token sounds like a good future proof solution.
If we record the presence of submodules and record the tree hash in the lock file, we might even use the tarball for the tree hash as an optimization when fetching a locked input, if Gitea behaves like GitHub in this regard.

tilmanmixyz requested review from fricklerhandwerk and edolstra as code owners September 9, 2024 18:43

github-actions bot added documentation new-cli Relating to the "nix" command fetching Networking with the outside (non-Nix) world, input locking labels Sep 9, 2024

tilmanmixyz changed the title ~~Gitea fetcher~~ Gitea fetcher for flake inputs Sep 9, 2024

tilmanmixyz changed the title ~~Gitea fetcher for flake inputs~~ WIP: Gitea fetcher for flake inputs Sep 9, 2024

tilmanmixyz force-pushed the gitea-fetcher branch 2 times, most recently from 2294074 to 7b3f824 Compare September 10, 2024 15:05

Mic92 reviewed Sep 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

tilmanmixyz added 2 commits September 10, 2024 20:50

doc: add documentation for gitea fetcher

aad7eea

Signed-off-by: Tilman Andre Mix <tilmanmixyz@proton.me>

tilmanmixyz force-pushed the gitea-fetcher branch from 7b3f824 to aad7eea Compare September 10, 2024 18:50

tilmanmixyz changed the title ~~WIP: Gitea fetcher for flake inputs~~ Gitea fetcher for flake inputs Sep 10, 2024

roberth requested changes Sep 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Mic92 reviewed Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Gitea fetcher for flake inputs #11467

Gitea fetcher for flake inputs #11467

tilmanmixyz commented Sep 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 10, 2024

Mic92 Sep 10, 2024

Mic92 Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

folliehiyuki Sep 10, 2024

tilmanmixyz Sep 10, 2024

tilmanmixyz Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

edolstra commented Sep 11, 2024

roberth left a comment

Mic92 commented Sep 12, 2024

Mic92 commented Sep 12, 2024

roberth commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 16, 2024

roberth commented Sep 16, 2024

Mic92 commented Sep 16, 2024

Mic92 commented Sep 16, 2024

Mic92 Sep 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

roberth commented Sep 24, 2024

	* `gitea:lix-project/lix?host=git.lix.systems`
	* `gitea:git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix`

Gitea fetcher for flake inputs #11467

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Gitea fetcher for flake inputs #11467

Conversation

tilmanmixyz commented Sep 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Motivation

Context

Mic92 commented Sep 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 10, 2024

Mic92 Sep 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 Sep 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

folliehiyuki Sep 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tilmanmixyz Sep 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tilmanmixyz Sep 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

edolstra commented Sep 11, 2024

roberth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 commented Sep 12, 2024

Mic92 commented Sep 12, 2024

roberth commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 16, 2024

roberth commented Sep 16, 2024

Mic92 commented Sep 16, 2024

Mic92 commented Sep 16, 2024

Mic92 Sep 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2024 • edited Loading

roberth commented Sep 24, 2024

tilmanmixyz commented Sep 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tilmanmixyz Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

roberth commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 Sep 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading