shellHook does not seem to run

[target]

shellHook does not seem to run

[Profpatsch]

Did you use it from direnv? shellHook is specifically only called from nix-shell, lorri direnv does not source it.

For your example, you can easily add FOO this way:

with import <nixpkgs> {};

mkShell {
  FOO="BAR"
}

(because everything you pass to mkShell is passed to mkDerivation (is passed to derivation), which convert each field in their argument attrset (like shellHook or buildPhase or in this case FOO) to an environment variable.

In general we might have to think about how to integrate shellHook in a way that is backwards-compatible to nix-shell. cc @grahamc

[Fresheyeball]

I have non-trivial scripts in my shellHook that expose bash functions that do things like setup test environments. It would be nice if everything in shellHook ran, so that echo "instructions on how to use this shell" get printed along without whatever else is going on.

[danbst]

yeah, sourcing shellHook would be great. Maybe even allow variable IS_IN_LORRI

[sveitser]

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I was using it with direnv. We are prepending a local directory containing some utility scripts to PATH in the shellHook. When switching over from direnv + nix-shell to direnv + lorri those weren't available anymore.

[Profpatsch]

Note that we have the same problem in lorri itself, so a good solution would be class.

As in: we add the paths both in .envrc and in shell.nix.

[Profpatsch]

It looks like some packages set up implicit shell hooks as well: #23 (comment)

So this becomes more pressing to implement.

[Profpatsch]

It’s a bit more complicated than that actually, we can’t just re-use existing shellHooks that packages provide, because they rely on the exact environment provided by the nix builder, which lorri cannot guarantee.

@grahamc gave an example of a problematic shellHook:

rm -rf $(find-the-thing)/*
and find-the-thing is defined in another hook which we don’t load.

so lorri/direnv would effectively execute rm -rf /* in that case.

We need to provide a good mechanism to achieve something similar with lorri.

[danbst]

maybe add an arg --shell-hook to make it opt-in?

[Profpatsch]

maybe add an arg --shell-hook to make it opt-in?

We could do something like lorriHook which users can explicitely alias to shellHook if they want to use it with lorri as well. Then we can define a strict environments we provide.

But we can’t really allow shellHooks from transitive packages, for the reason I’ve outlined above. It’s just impossible to handle in the general case. But most of those hooks are pretty easy to adapt for the user I think (e.g. just manually write GOPATH=… into your hook).

[Profpatsch]

I have no trivial scripts in my shellHook that expose bash functions that do things like setup test environments.

Does this mean you do have bash functions in your shellHook? Or the opposite?

[Profpatsch]

As a stop-gap solution we could display a warning to the user that a shellHook was not executed (and maybe the contents of the shellHook).

[Drainful]

I have a partial workaround for people who live in Emacs
https://gist.github.com/Drainful/a3cd702dc590480cf4897a9859fc499f

[grahamc]

Addressed in #75