[RFCxxxx] Phase running changes for better nix-shell use

rfcs/0000-run-phase-changes-for-better-nix-shell-use.md

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+---
+feature: run-phase-changes-for-better-nix-shell-use
+start-date: 2018-08-26
+author: @dezgeg
+co-authors: TBD
+related-issues: https://github.com/dezgeg/nixpkgs/tree/better-run-phases
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Making some minor tweaks to how phases are run in the stdenv to improve the UX of nix-shell.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+The primary goal of this RFC is to make it easier to run build phases manually inside a nix-shell.
+Currently, it's a bit annoying because to run say, `buildPhase` the only invocation that works correctly in all cases is:
+
+````
+eval "${buildPhase:-buildPhase}"
+````
+
+The goal is to be able to replace the above with the obvious:
+````
+buildPhase
+````
+
+The secondary goal is to change how hooks (like `preBuild`, `postBuild` etc.) interact with overridden phases.
+For example a derivation `foo-package` doing,
+````
+    buildPhase = ''
+        ./my-funky-build-script.sh
+    '';
+````
+causes `preBuild` and `postBuild` not to be called anymore.
+In 99% of the cases this isn't a problem, but it can cause hidden annoyances when using `.overrideAttrs`, for instance:
+````
+    foo-package.overrideAttrs (attrs: {
+        postBuild = (attrs.postBuild or "") + ''
+            # whatever
+        '';
+    })
+````
+Which has led to some people adding explicit `runHook preFoo` and `runHook postFoo` calls to a (small) number of packages.
+
+Thus, to counter this inconsistency, this RFC proposes that those hooks will be run even when the phase is overridden.
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+All the 'phase' functions in Nixpkgs need to be reworked a bit. Conceptually, the following diff will be applied to each of them:
+````
+-buildPhase() {
++defaultBuildPhase() {
+-    runHook preBuild
+-
+     # set to empty if unset
+     : ${makeFlags=}
+ 
+@@ -1008,14 +1104,14 @@ buildPhase() {
+         make ${makefile:+-f $makefile} "${flagsArray[@]}"
+         unset flagsArray
+     fi
+-
+-    runHook postBuild
+ }
++
++buildPhase() {
++    runHook preBuild
++
++    if [ -n "$buildPhase" ]; then
++        eval "$buildPhase"
++    else
++        defaultBuildPhase
++    fi
++
++    runHook postBuild
++}
+ 
+````
+That is, the logic of 'if variable `$buildPhase` is set, then eval the contents of `$buildPhase`, otherwise call the function `buildPhase` which contains the default implementation' is pulled down from `genericBuild` to the `buildPhase` function itself
+and the function responsible for the default implementation is now renamed to `defaultBuildPhase`.
+Then, the `runHook` calls are pulled up from the default phase implementation to the new `buildPhase` function itself.
+
+The actual logic is abstracted to helper function I've named `commonPhaseImpl` (bikeshedding on the name welcome). Thus the implementation of `buildPhase` presented above will be this one-liner:
+````
+buildPhase() {
+    commonPhaseImpl buildPhase --default defaultBuildPhase --pre-hook preBuild --post-hook postBuild
+}
+````
+
+## Backwards compatibility
+
+The changed semantics proposed here might break some out-of-tree packages.
+Fortunately most of it should be avoidable by writing some backwards-compatibility code that will allow extra time for out-of-tree code to migrate.
+In the order of how frequent the problem will happen (in my view), the following things are problematic:
+
+1. Out-of-tree packages which have explicit `runHook preFoo` and `runHook postFoo` in their overridden `fooPhase`.
+2. Out-of-tree custom phases.
+3. Out-of-tree packages that expect calls like `buildPhase` to call the default implementation.
+
+For 1., the problem is that the `preFoo` and `postFoo` hooks would get executed twice.
+We can avoid this by having `commonPhaseImpl` 'poison' the hooks for the duration of the overridden phase
+by temporarily setting `preFoo` and `postFoo` to some function that just prints a warning message.
+
+For 2., the problem is what should `genericBuild` do if both `$fooPhase` the variable and `fooPhase` the function exists.
+ - For "new-style" phases (i.e. ones migrated to use `commonPhaseImpl`) the only right thing to do is to call the function `fooPhase`.
+ - For "old-style" phases (i.e. ones that have not migrated to `commonPhaseImpl` yet) the only right thing to do is `eval "$fooPhase"`.
+Thus, a way to detect between the two cases needs to be made. I currently have a check among the lines of `declare -f "$curPhase" | grep -q commonPhaseImpl`.
+That is, grep the definition of the function to see if the word `commonPhaseImpl` appears there, which is a quite crude hack but will probably work in practice.
+An alternative would be to have a associative array where the phases could declare that they are 'new-style' (e.g. stdenv's setup.sh would have `isNewStylePhase[buildPhase]=1` somewhere and so on).
+
+For 3., the specific problem is that some (very few) packages do something like this:
+````
+    buildPhase = ''
+        buildPhase
+        (cd foo; buildPhase)
+        (cd bar; buildPhase)
+    '';
+````
+Which will now call the overridden `buildPhase` and recurse infinitely until Bash crashes with a segfault.
+To counter this, `commonPhaseImpl` will detect recursion from a phase to itself and fail the build with an error message,
+instructing that the code here needs to be changed to `defaultBuildPhase`.
+
+Of these three, only 3. needs immediate changes to out-of-tree code. The other two can be kept as a notice/warning for some time,
+enabling users to write Nix expressions that are compatible with both old and new Nixpkgs versions simply by not migrating immediately.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+This proposal will (eventually) force some users to change their code as previously listed in the 'Backwards compatibility' section.
+
+Nixpkgs developers will have to learn this new way of implementing phases.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+An alternative which has been discussed at some point is to have a function like:
+````
+runPhase() {
+    local phase="$1"
+    eval "${!phase:-$phase}"
+}
+````
+which would mean a nix-shell user would write e.g. `runPhase buildPhase` to run `buildPhase` and have it always work correctly.
+
+While that would be an improvement to status quo, I don't feel that is a sufficient solution,
+because there still would be a function `buildPhase` in scope, where running just `buildPhase` would work *sometimes*,
+but silently do the wrong thing sometimes.
+
+Not doing this RFC at all would also be an option, given that the issue being fixed is a pure UX issue, not fixing it wouldn't prevent any other work from happening.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+This needs some testing to see if this works with the ancient Darwin Bash.
+
+Some people might object to the 'grep function's source to see if it uses `commonPhaseImpl`' which will need another less magical approach if so.
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+There's an open ticket (at https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/5483) titled 'Does it make sense for propagatedBuildInputs to get written out in fixupPhase?'
+which point out that `propagatedBuildInputs` file doesn't get written out if `fixupPhase` is disabled.
+This RFC opens the door for having some parts of a phase not user-overridable, which could be used to avoid the `propagatedBuildInputs`-not-written problem.