Fix missing flake input in README - #199
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: 4 reviews are currently available. Your included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 5 reviews per hour. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe nix-darwin configuration example in Changesnix-darwin Example
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This is a localized README fix that makes the documented flake inputs consistent with the example usage; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains beyond normal checks and review. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
| determinate.url = "https://flakehub.com/f/DeterminateSystems/determinate/3"; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| outputs = { self, ... }@inputs: { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
personally, I'd yoink the { self, ...}@ bit and just leave it as inputs. I really don't like the destructing here and try to undo it anywhere I see it.
(Also avoids the issue where nix will populate those destructured fields from the registry if they're not in the inputs [we warn, but still...])
totally a nit though
The nix-darwin example uses
inputs.determinatebut doesn't adddeterminateto the flake inputs.Summary by CodeRabbit