Fix testers.hasPkgConfigModules version check

[roberth]

Description of changes

Fix a mistake I reviewed.

• testers.hasPkgConfigModules: add optional version check #307770 (comment)

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[roberth]

@ofborg build tests.testers.hasPkgConfigModules

[OPNA2608]

nixpkgs/pkgs/build-support/testers/hasPkgConfigModules/tester.nix

Lines 58 to 60 in 4f554f0

	if [[ $notFound -eq 0 ]] && ([[ $versionMismatch -eq 0 ]] || [[ "$versionCheck" == false ]]); then
	exit 0
	fi

The "$versionCheck" == false check further down seems broken and might need some adjusting/removal as well.

[roberth]

@OPNA2608 you're right - that conditional never worked.
I've removed it, as the new conditional is sufficient.

[nbraud]

To clarify, the goal is to handle derivations which do not have a version attribute?
Edit: re-read the o.g. bug report, issue is simply that versionCheck was ignored.

[nbraud]

Seems more complex than necessary, see suggested alternative in #311069

[roberth]

#311069 isn't quite ready yet because of a UX problem, but we should consider merging something because currently the tester doesn't behave as intended.

[nbraud]

#311069 was merged instead.