tests/test-issue522.t

mq: update subrepos when applying / unapplying patches that change .hgsubstate

Up until now applying or unapplying a patch that modified .hgsubstate would not
work as expected because it would not update the subrepos according to the
.hgsubstate change. This made it very easy to lose subrepo changes when using
mq.

This revision also changes the test-mq-subrepo test so that on the qpop / qpush
tests. We no longer use the debugsub command to check the state of the subrepos
after the qpop and qpush operations. Instead we directly run the id command on
the subrepos that we want to check. The reason is that using the debugsub
command is misleading because it does not really check the state of the subrepos
on the working directory (it just returns what the change that is specified on a
given revision). Because of this the tests did not detect the problem that this
revision fixes (i.e. that applying a patch did not update the subrepos to the
corresponding revisions).


# HG changeset patch
# User Angel Ezquerra <[e-mail]>
# Date 1376350710 -7200
#      Tue Aug 13 01:38:30 2013 +0200
# Node ID 60897e264858cdcd46f89e27a702086f08adca02
# Parent  2defb5453f223c3027eb2f7788fbddd52bbb3352
mq: update subrepos when applying / unapplying patches that change .hgsubstate

Up until now applying or unapplying a patch that modified .hgsubstate would not
work as expected because it would not update the subrepos according to the
.hgsubstate change. This made it very easy to lose subrepo changes when using
mq.

This revision also changes the test-mq-subrepo test so that on the qpop / qpush
tests. We no longer use the debugsub command to check the state of the subrepos
after the qpop and qpush operations. Instead we directly run the id command on
the subrepos that we want to check. The reason is that using the debugsub
command is misleading because it does not really check the state of the subrepos
on the working directory (it just returns what the change that is specified on a
given revision). Because of this the tests did not detect the problem that this
revision fixes (i.e. that applying a patch did not update the subrepos to the
corresponding revisions).

http://mercurial.selenic.com/bts/issue522

In the merge below, the file "foo" has the same contents in both
parents, but if we look at the file-level history, we'll notice that
the version in p1 is an ancestor of the version in p2. This test makes
sure that we'll use the version from p2 in the manifest of the merge
revision.

  $ hg init

  $ echo foo > foo
  $ hg ci -qAm 'add foo'

  $ echo bar >> foo
  $ hg ci -m 'change foo'

  $ hg backout -r tip -m 'backout changed foo'
  reverting foo
  changeset 2:4d9e78aaceee backs out changeset 1:b515023e500e

  $ hg up -C 0
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ touch bar
  $ hg ci -qAm 'add bar'

  $ hg merge --debug
    searching for copies back to rev 1
    unmatched files in local:
     bar
  resolving manifests
   branchmerge: True, force: False, partial: False
   ancestor: bbd179dfa0a7, local: 71766447bdbb+, remote: 4d9e78aaceee
   foo: remote is newer -> g
  getting foo
  updating: foo 1/1 files (100.00%)
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)

  $ hg debugstate | grep foo
  n   0         -2 unset               foo

  $ hg st -A foo
  M foo

  $ hg ci -m 'merge'

  $ hg manifest --debug | grep foo
  c6fc755d7e68f49f880599da29f15add41f42f5a 644   foo

  $ hg debugindex foo
     rev    offset  length  ..... linkrev nodeid       p1           p2 (re)
       0         0       5  .....       0 2ed2a3912a0b 000000000000 000000000000 (re)
       1         5       9  .....       1 6f4310b00b9a 2ed2a3912a0b 000000000000 (re)
       2        14       5  .....       2 c6fc755d7e68 6f4310b00b9a 000000000000 (re)