treefmt: apply prettier
Pure `nix fmt` output from the commit before this one — no hand edits. 203 files: 52 md, 42 tsx, 32 js, 32 css, 21 ts, 13 html, 8 json, 3 mjs. Reproduce with `nix develop -c nix fmt` on the parent commit; the result should be byte-identical to this tree. None of the 13 `.prettierignore` entries appears here — verified by intersecting the changed-file list against the ignore file, with a control proving the intersection finds a match when one exists.
This commit is contained in:
parent
5d24bedd60
commit
39b95c2ede
203 changed files with 10090 additions and 6085 deletions
|
|
@ -78,8 +78,8 @@ existing containers can't be started.
|
|||
### `RestrictAddressFamilies` fails as "Address family not supported by protocol"
|
||||
|
||||
A unit whose `RestrictAddressFamilies` omits a family gets `EAFNOSUPPORT`
|
||||
(errno 97) back from `socket()`. Clients surface that as *"tcp open error:
|
||||
Address family not supported by protocol"* — the message names the
|
||||
(errno 97) back from `socket()`. Clients surface that as _"tcp open error:
|
||||
Address family not supported by protocol"_ — the message names the
|
||||
**protocol** and never the **sandbox**, so it reads like a dead network, a
|
||||
missing route, or an IPv6 problem.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ re-checks it when the program changes.** A unit that only served a unix
|
|||
socket when it was written is correct at `[ "AF_UNIX" ]` and silently wrong
|
||||
the day someone adds an HTTP client. Check the unit in the same commit as
|
||||
the client — and when narrowing it, prefer a test that derives the required
|
||||
families from the code (which fails on the *next* client too) over one that
|
||||
families from the code (which fails on the _next_ client too) over one that
|
||||
asserts today's list.
|
||||
|
||||
### `register_agent` is idempotent
|
||||
|
|
@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ operator's host-level `allowUnfree` does **not** propagate in.
|
|||
Operators don't need to set anything on their side.
|
||||
|
||||
That same isolation is why an agent can't pick a claude out of a
|
||||
*different* nixpkgs by itself: a container only ever sees the one
|
||||
_different_ nixpkgs by itself: a container only ever sees the one
|
||||
nixpkgs the meta flake injects, so an `agent.nix` naming the host's
|
||||
`nixpkgs-unstable` has nothing to name. A release channel can trail
|
||||
unstable by weeks on this package, which is what
|
||||
|
|
@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ an input only because a docs tree has no runtime dependencies.
|
|||
|
||||
The `storePath` trap is worth spelling out, because it is not confined
|
||||
to options the operator writes: **any** option of type `package` fed a
|
||||
store-path *string* coerces through `lib.toDerivation`, i.e.
|
||||
store-path _string_ coerces through `lib.toDerivation`, i.e.
|
||||
`builtins.storePath`. `environment.systemPackages` and
|
||||
`systemd.services.<name>.path` both do it (the latter takes plain
|
||||
strings like `/run/wrappers` happily, but anything under
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ human review that already happened.
|
|||
|
||||
Whether a PR can merge, and what counts toward "can", is configured
|
||||
per repo in its branch-protection settings — not a fact true of every
|
||||
hive or every repo. The pieces a repo *can* require:
|
||||
hive or every repo. The pieces a repo _can_ require:
|
||||
|
||||
- **CI is green** — the repo's required status checks pass on the
|
||||
PR's current head commit, if the repo requires any.
|
||||
|
|
@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ independently.
|
|||
|
||||
Auto-merge isn't "no human ever looked at this." Whoever arms it has
|
||||
already judged the PR sound at a coarse level — the signal it sends is
|
||||
roughly *"apart from maybe minor tweaks a reviewer can still catch,
|
||||
I think this is fine."* That's the human-in-the-loop step, and it
|
||||
roughly _"apart from maybe minor tweaks a reviewer can still catch,
|
||||
I think this is fine."_ That's the human-in-the-loop step, and it
|
||||
already happened. No large changes are expected to surface after
|
||||
that point — a reviewer's job past that point is to flag it if one
|
||||
does, not to assume none ever will.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue