tests/test-share.t
author Anton Shestakov <av6@dwimlabs.net>
Fri, 07 Jun 2019 18:14:48 +0800
branchstable
changeset 4687 313565dd75e3
parent 4488 6c0992ce05f7
permissions -rw-r--r--
pick: remove transaction on the whole command (issue6037) At its core, pick is a pretty straightforward and well-behaving command, it uses functions already in core hg, it checks that wdir is clean and that changeset to pick is not public, it checks if there happen to be merge conflicts and can be --continue'd later, etc. It is very similar to graft in core (it also uses mergemod.graft function), but it obsoletes the original changeset. However, graft does not experience this incorrect behavior from issue 6037. What happens in the test case for this issue when we pick a revision that touches both "a" and "b": mergemod.graft() takes the original changeset and tries to apply it to the wdir, which results in "b" being marked as newly added and ready to be committed, "a" updated with the new content and being marked as modified, but "a" also has conflicts. Pick correctly notices this and saves its state before asking for user intervention. So far so good. However, when the command raises InterventionRequired to print a user-facing message and exit while being wrapped in repo.transaction() context manager, the latter partially undoes what mergemod.graft() did: it unmarks "b" as added. And when user continues pick, "b" is therefore not tracked and is not included in the resulting commit. The transaction is not useful here, because it doesn't touch wdir (it's still dirty), it doesn't remove pickstate (and other commands will refuse to work until pick --abort or --continue), it just makes "b" untracked. The solution is to use repo.transaction() only to wrap code that writes data to hg store in the final stages of the command after all checks have passed and is not expected to fail on trivial cases like merge conflicts. For example, committing the picked changeset. But since pick uses repo.commit() for that, and because that function already uses a transaction, wrapping it in another transaction doesn't make sense.

Test that share-clones use the cache in the original repository.

  $ . $TESTDIR/testlib/common.sh

  $ hg init share-base
  $ cd share-base/
  $ cat >> .hg/hgrc <<EOF
  > [extensions]
  > evolve=
  > share=
  > EOF
  $ hg debugbuilddag .+3:branchpoint+4*branchpoint+2
  $ cd ..
  $ hg --config extensions.share= share -U share-base share-client
  $ cd share-client
  $ hg debugupdatecache
  $ test -d .hg/cache
  [1]
  $ test -d ../share-base/.hg/cache