Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:21:14 +0100 match: rename RootFiles to RootFilesIn for more consistency stable
Arseniy Alekseyev <aalekseyev@janestreet.com> [Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:21:14 +0100] rev 51479
match: rename RootFiles to RootFilesIn for more consistency
Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:17:10 +0100 match: small tweak to PatternMatcher.visit_children_set stable
Arseniy Alekseyev <aalekseyev@janestreet.com> [Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:17:10 +0100] rev 51478
match: small tweak to PatternMatcher.visit_children_set This makes it a bit more efficient (avoid a computation in case of early return), and in my opinion clearer.
Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:09:55 +0100 matchers: fix the bug in rust PatternMatcher that made it cut off early stable
Arseniy Alekseyev <aalekseyev@janestreet.com> [Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:09:55 +0100] rev 51477
matchers: fix the bug in rust PatternMatcher that made it cut off early This brings the rust output in line with the Python output.
Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:48:38 +0100 tests: add an end-to-end test to show a bug in `visit_children_set` stable
Arseniy Alekseyev <aalekseyev@janestreet.com> [Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:48:38 +0100] rev 51476
tests: add an end-to-end test to show a bug in `visit_children_set` Concretely, `rootfilesin` is completely broken with respect to `visit_children_set` optimization.
Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:57:36 +0100 tests: add tests and document expectations from visit_children_set in rust stable
Arseniy Alekseyev <aalekseyev@janestreet.com> [Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:57:36 +0100] rev 51475
tests: add tests and document expectations from visit_children_set in rust The tests this patch are adding have the form of formal spec in invariants::visit_children_set::holds, and then a series of checks that all examples must satisfy this formal spec. I tried to make the spec consistent with how this function is used and how it was originally conceived. This is in conflict with how it's documented in Rust. Some of the implementations also fail to implement this spec, which leads to bugs, in particular when complicated patterns are used with `hg status`.
Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:53:23 +0100 tests: add a test that demonstrates a bug in rhg status pattern handling stable
Arseniy Alekseyev <aalekseyev@janestreet.com> [Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:53:23 +0100] rev 51474
tests: add a test that demonstrates a bug in rhg status pattern handling The bug is in [visit_children_set], will be elaborated on in follow-up changes.
Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:07:46 +0200 bundle-spec: properly parse boolean configuration as boolean stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:07:46 +0200] rev 51473
bundle-spec: properly parse boolean configuration as boolean Before this changesets "v2;revbranchcache=no" would actually request the addition for a revbranchcache part as the non-empty string `"0"` is `True`
Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:41:43 +0200 bundle-spec: properly identify changegroup-less bundle stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:41:43 +0200] rev 51472
bundle-spec: properly identify changegroup-less bundle It is possible to produce a bundle without changegroup. For example if we want to only send phases or obsolescence information. However that lead to crash for command that identifies bundle content. So we fix that. The test will come in the next changesets, when we fix another bug preventing to generate such bundle by hand.
Wed, 03 Apr 2024 16:00:37 +0200 setup: display return code information about failed `hg` call stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 03 Apr 2024 16:00:37 +0200] rev 51471
setup: display return code information about failed `hg` call This help to understand what is going wrong when things goes wrong.
Fri, 29 Mar 2024 21:37:09 +0100 Added signature for changeset 803e61387e86 stable
Raphaël Gomès <rgomes@octobus.net> [Fri, 29 Mar 2024 21:37:09 +0100] rev 51470
Added signature for changeset 803e61387e86
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 tip