hg-stable: Changelog

wireproto: remove iterbatch() from peer interface (API) Good riddance. Some tests have been ported to the new API. This probably should have been done in earlier commits. But duplicating the test coverage would have been difficult. It was easier this way. .. api:: The wire protocol peer's ``iterbatch()`` for bulk executing commands has been remove.d Use ``peer.commandexecutor()`` instead. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3271

largefiles: use command executor for batch operation This is the only other user of iterbatch() in core. Tests changed because the new command executor is smart enough to not send a "batch" command over the wire if only 1 command was requested. There is still coverage for the "batch" command in this test though. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3270

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

wireproto: implement command executor interface for version 1 peers Now that we've defined our new interface for issuing commands, let's implement it. We add the interface to the base peer interface. This means all peer types must implement it. The only peer types that we have are the local peer in localrepo and a shared wire peer for version 1 of the wire protocol. The local peer implementation is pretty straightforward. We don't do anything fancy and just return a resolved future with the result of a method call. This is similar to what localiterbatcher does. The wire protocol version 1 implementation is a bit more complicated and is a more robust implementation. The wire executor queues commands by default. And because the new executor interface always allows multiple commands but not all version 1 commands are @batchable, it has to check that the requested commands are batchable if multiple commands are being requested. The wire executor currently only supports executing a single command. This is for simplicity reasons. Support for multiple commands will be added in a separate commit. To prove the new interface works, a call to the "known" command during discovery has been updated to use the new API. It's worth noting that both implementations require a method having the command name to exist on the peer. There is at least one caller in core that don't have a method calls peer._call() directly. We may need to shore up the requirements later... Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3268

repository: define new interface for running commands Today, the peer interface exposes methods for each command that can be executed. In addition, there is an iterbatch() API that allows commands to be issued in batches and provides an iterator over the results. This is a glorified wrapper around the "batch" wire command. Wire protocol version 2 supports nicer things (such as batching any command and out-of-order replies). It will require a more flexible API for executing commands. This commit introduces a new peer interface for making command requests. In the new world, you can't simply call a method on the peer to execute a command: you need to obtain an object to be used for executing commands. That object can be used to issue a single command or it can batch multiple requests. In the case of full duplex peers, the command may even be sent out over the wire immediately. There are no per-command methods. Instead, there is a generic method to call a command. The implementation can then perform domain specific processing for specific commands. This includes passing data via a specially named argument. Arguments are also passed as a dictionary instead of using **kwargs. While **kwargs is nicer to use, we've historically gotten into trouble using it because there will inevitably be a conflict between the name of an argument to a wire protocol command and an argument we want to pass into a function. Instead of a command returning a value, it returns a future which will resolve to a value. This opens the door for out-of-order response handling and concurrent response handling in the version 2 protocol. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3267