tests/test-empty-file.t

wireproto: implement batching on peer executor interface

This is a bit more complicated than non-batch requests because we
need to buffer sends until the last request arrives *and* we need
to support resolving futures as data arrives from the remote.

In a classical concurrent.futures executor model, the future
"starts" as soon as it is submitted. However, we have nothing to
start until the last command is submitted.

If we did nothing, calling result() would deadlock, since the future
hasn't "started." So in the case where we queue the command, we return
a special future type whose result() will trigger sendcommands().
This eliminates the deadlock potential. It also serves as a check
against callers who may be calling result() prematurely, as it will
prevent any subsequent callcommands() from working. This behavior
is slightly annoying and a bit restrictive. But it's the world
that half duplex connections forces on us.

In order to support streaming responses, we were previously using
a generator. But with a futures-based API, we're using futures
and not generators. So in order to get streaming, we need a
background thread to read data from the server.

The approach taken in this patch is to leverage the ThreadPoolExecutor
from concurrent.futures for managing a background thread. We create
an executor and future that resolves when all response data is
processed (or an error occurs). When exiting the context manager,
we wait on that background reading before returning.

I was hoping we could manually spin up a threading.Thread and this
would be simple. But I ran into a few deadlocks when implementing.
After looking at the source code to concurrent.futures, I figured
it would just be easier to use a ThreadPoolExecutor than implement
all the code needed to manually manage a thread.

To prove this works, a use of the batch API in discovery has been
updated.

Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3269

  $ hg init a
  $ cd a
  $ touch empty1
  $ hg add empty1
  $ hg commit -m 'add empty1'

  $ touch empty2
  $ hg add empty2
  $ hg commit -m 'add empty2'

  $ hg up -C 0
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ touch empty3
  $ hg add empty3
  $ hg commit -m 'add empty3'
  created new head

  $ hg heads
  changeset:   2:a1cb177e0d44
  tag:         tip
  parent:      0:1e1d9c4e5b64
  user:        test
  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
  summary:     add empty3
  
  changeset:   1:097d2b0e17f6
  user:        test
  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
  summary:     add empty2
  

  $ hg merge 1
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)

Before changeset 05257fd28591, we didn't notice the
empty file that came from rev 1:

  $ hg status
  M empty2
  $ hg commit -m merge
  $ hg manifest --debug tip
  b80de5d138758541c5f05265ad144ab9fa86d1db 644   empty1
  b80de5d138758541c5f05265ad144ab9fa86d1db 644   empty2
  b80de5d138758541c5f05265ad144ab9fa86d1db 644   empty3

  $ cd ..