tests/test-topic-fold.t
author Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com>
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 23:59:41 +0530
changeset 5239 13152b2fe8f7
parent 4067 fb4801478d5d
permissions -rw-r--r--
evolve: refactor content-divergence resolution logic > What is the case we are looking at? This is about refactoring the part of content-div resolution logic where it decides which cset should be relocated and where. > What is a "topologicial common ancestors" vs a "greatest common ancestors"? `tca` is an ancestor which we can decide/find by looking at the at graph visually for e.g ``` c3(*) c4(*) | | c2(x) c1(x) c5 | / \ | / c0 ``` (c5 is the successor of c2 and c1) now here, `tca` of c3 and c4 is: c0 `gca` of c3 and c4 is: c5 > What is the new top-level logic/behavior that makes it better? The old code had some unnecessary edge cases just because we were using `gca`, since it can point to a revision that is not a topological ancestor. For e.g see b779b40f996e Eventually, the code around this was getting messy unnecessarily. So I looked into it and found a simple and more robust approach. And in new code, it is simple and straightforward (and easy to understand), where we handle the following 4 cases when solving content-div: 1) when both are on the same parent => (no need to do anything special, and simply proceed) 2) both are on the different parent but a) `tca` is the parent of one of them or b) there is no non-obsolete revision between `tca` and one of the divergent cset. => (relocate one to the other side and proceed) 3) both are on different parents and `tca` is not the parent of any of them and there is at least one non-obsolete cset between tca and both the divergent cset i.e (tca::div1) and (tca::div2) both the ranges have at least one non-obs revision. => (this is the case which we don't handle yet, but the solution would be to prompt the user to choose an evolve destination.) 4) both are in the parent-child relation => (both are merged and new cset will be based on the successor of `tca`) Changes in test-evolve-issue5958.t demonstrate that new code also covered case4 because in a resolution of "two divergent csets with parent-child relation" there should be one cset as a result and no orphan revs (as you can see there was an orphan before this patch).

test of the fold command
------------------------

  $ cat >> $HGRCPATH <<EOF
  > [defaults]
  > amend=-d "0 0"
  > fold=-d "0 0"
  > split=-d "0 0"
  > amend=-d "0 0"
  > [web]
  > push_ssl = false
  > allow_push = *
  > [phases]
  > publish = False
  > [diff]
  > git = 1
  > unified = 0
  > [ui]
  > interactive = true
  > [extensions]
  > EOF
  $ echo "topic=$(echo $(dirname $TESTDIR))/hgext3rd/topic/" >> $HGRCPATH
  $ echo "evolve=$(echo $(dirname $TESTDIR))/hgext3rd/evolve/" >> $HGRCPATH
  $ mkcommit() {
  >    echo "$1" > "$1"
  >    hg add "$1"
  >    hg ci -m "add $1" $2 $3
  > }
  $ logtopic() {
  >    hg log -G -T "{rev}:{node}\ntopics: {topics}" 
  > }

Check that fold keep the topic if all revisions have the topic
--------------------------------------------------------------

  $ hg init testfold
  $ cd testfold
  $ mkcommit ROOT
  $ hg topic myfeature
  marked working directory as topic: myfeature
  $ mkcommit feature1
  active topic 'myfeature' grew its first changeset
  (see 'hg help topics' for more information)
  $ mkcommit feature2
  $ logtopic
  @  2:d76a6166b18c835be9a487c5e21c7d260f0a1676
  |  topics: myfeature
  o  1:39e7a938055e87615edf675c24a10997ff05bb06
  |  topics: myfeature
  o  0:3e7df3b3b17c6deb4a1c70e790782fdf17af96a7
     topics:
  $ hg fold --exact -r "(tip~1)::" -m "folded"
  2 changesets folded
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg stack
  ### topic: myfeature
  ### target: default (branch)
  s1@ folded (current)
  s0^ add ROOT (base)
  $ logtopic
  @  3:4fd43e5bdc443dc8489edffac19bd8f93ccf1a5c
  |  topics: myfeature
  o  0:3e7df3b3b17c6deb4a1c70e790782fdf17af96a7
     topics:
  $ hg summary
  parent: 3:4fd43e5bdc44 tip
   folded
  branch: default
  commit: (clean)
  update: (current)
  phases: 2 draft
  topic:  myfeature

Check that fold dismis the topic if not all revisions have the topic
--------------------------------------------------------------------

(I'm not sure this behavior make senses, but now it is tested)

  $ hg topic --clear
  $ mkcommit feature3
  created new head
  (consider using topic for lightweight branches. See 'hg help topic')
  $ hg topic myotherfeature
  marked working directory as topic: myotherfeature
  $ mkcommit feature4
  active topic 'myotherfeature' grew its first changeset
  (see 'hg help topics' for more information)
  $ logtopic
  @  5:5ded4d6d578c37f339b0716de2e46e12ece7cbde
  |  topics: myotherfeature
  o  4:bdf6950b9b5b7c6b377c8132667c73ec86d5734f
  |  topics:
  o  3:4fd43e5bdc443dc8489edffac19bd8f93ccf1a5c
  |  topics: myfeature
  o  0:3e7df3b3b17c6deb4a1c70e790782fdf17af96a7
     topics:
  $ hg fold --exact -r "(tip~1)::" -m "folded 2"
  active topic 'myotherfeature' is now empty
  2 changesets folded
  clearing empty topic "myotherfeature"
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ logtopic
  @  6:03da8f7238e9a4d708d6b8af402c91c68f271477
  |  topics:
  o  3:4fd43e5bdc443dc8489edffac19bd8f93ccf1a5c
  |  topics: myfeature
  o  0:3e7df3b3b17c6deb4a1c70e790782fdf17af96a7
     topics:
  $ hg summary
  parent: 6:03da8f7238e9 tip
   folded 2
  branch: default
  commit: (clean)
  update: (current)
  phases: 3 draft