build(native): switch to wasmcloud-otp

[rvolosatovs]

Feature or Problem

Related Issues

closes #640

Release Information

Consumer Impact

Testing

Built on platform(s)

• x86_64-linux
• aarch64-linux
• x86_64-darwin
• aarch64-darwin
• x86_64-windows

Tested on platform(s)

• x86_64-linux
• aarch64-linux
• x86_64-darwin
• aarch64-darwin
• x86_64-windows

Unit Test(s)

Acceptance or Integration

Manual Verification

[autodidaddict]

I'd made similar changes to my own PR, but I didn't think about the nix flake. Good catch

[autodidaddict]

LGTM so long as the build passes

[rvolosatovs]

I'd made similar changes to my own PR, but I didn't think about the nix flake. Good catch

The CI in this repo was broken for a while apparently, as I mentioned earlier (at least for now) updates to mix dependencies require updating the hash in the flake

[autodidaddict]

Can this get fixed?

thread 'main' panicked at 'The NIF version given from RUSTLER_NIF_VERSION is not supported: 2.17', /Users/runner/.cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f/rustler_sys-2.2.0/build.rs:925:

[rvolosatovs]

Can this get fixed?

thread 'main' panicked at 'The NIF version given from RUSTLER_NIF_VERSION is not supported: 2.17', /Users/runner/.cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f/rustler_sys-2.2.0/build.rs:925:

See rusterlium/rustler#544

The issue is that OTP version used by CI is non-deterministic. Note, how it works just fine within Nix sandbox (because OTP version is locked)

[connorsmith256]

I don't follow. @rvolosatovs are you saying you expect CI to fail with this change? Do we need to/can we upgrade rustler to fix it?

[rvolosatovs]

I don't follow. @rvolosatovs are you saying you expect CI to fail with this change? Do we need to/can we upgrade rustler to fix it?

No. CI running outside Nix sandbox failed before a8df2c5, see https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmcloud-otp/actions/runs/5622887410/job/15236382057 for example.

[autodidaddict]

So I am still a bit fuzzy... @rvolosatovs is this something that you're comfortable merging, and saying that the 2 failing items (so far) are things we can safely ignore?

[rvolosatovs]

So I am still a bit fuzzy... @rvolosatovs is this something that you're comfortable merging, and saying that the 2 failing items (so far) are things we can safely ignore?

I do not see any failures, CI is still running

[autodidaddict]

So I am still a bit fuzzy... @rvolosatovs is this something that you're comfortable merging, and saying that the 2 failing items (so far) are things we can safely ignore?

I do not see any failures, CI is still running

Yay for eventually consistent GUI. Github was showing me 2 failed runs but when I refreshed the status changed to "expected"