Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:14:19 -0700] rev 39650
wireprotov2: add bookmarks to "changesetdata" command
Like we did for phases, we want to emit bookmarks data attached
to each changeset.
The approach here is very similar to phases: we emit bookmarks
data inline with requested revision data. But we emit
records for nodes that weren't requested as well so consumers have
access to the full set of defined bookmarks.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4485
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:01:58 -0700] rev 39649
exchangev2: fetch and apply phases data
Now that the server supports emitting phases data, we can request it
and apply it on the client.
Because we may receive phases-only updates from the server, we no
longer conditionally perform the "changesetdata" command depending
on whether there are revisions to fetch. In the previous wire
protocol, this case would result in us falling back to performing
"listkeys" commands to look up phases, bookmarks, etc data. But
since "changesetdata" is smart enough to handle metadata only
fetches, we can keep things consistent.
It's worth noting that because of the unified approach to changeset
data retrieval, phase handling code in wire proto v2 exchange is
drastically simpler. Contrast with all the code in exchange.py
dealing with all the variations for obtaining phases data.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4484
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:19:23 -0700] rev 39648
wireprotov2: add phases to "changesetdata" command
This commit teaches the "changesetdata" wire protocol command
to emit the phase state for each changeset.
This is a different approach from existing phase transfer in a
few ways. Previously, if there are no new revisions (or we're
not using bundle2), we perform a "listkeys" request to retrieve
phase heads. And when revision data is being transferred
with bundle2, phases data is encoded in a standalone bundle2 part.
In both cases, phases data is logically decoupled from the changeset
data and is encountered/applied after changeset revision data
is received.
The new wire protocol purposefully tries to more tightly associate
changeset metadata (phases, bookmarks, obsolescence markers, etc)
with the changeset revision and index data itself, rather than
have it live as a separate entity that must be fetched and
processed separately. I reckon that one reason we didn't do this
before was it was difficult to add new data types/fields without
breaking existing consumers. By using CBOR maps to transfer
changeset data and putting clients in control of what fields are
requested / present in those maps, we can easily add additional
changeset data while maintaining backwards compatibility. I believe
this to be a superior approach to the problem.
That being said, for performance reasons, we may need to resort
to alternative mechanisms for transferring data like phases. But
for now, I think giving the wire protocol the ability to transfer
changeset metadata next to the changeset itself is a powerful feature
because it is a raw, changeset-centric data API. And if you build
simple APIs for accessing the fundamental units of repository data,
you enable client-side experimentation (partial clone, etc). If it
turns out that we need specialized APIs or mechanisms for transferring
data like phases, we can build in those APIs later. For now, I'd
like to see how far we can get on simple APIs.
It's worth noting that when phase data is being requested, the
server will also emit changeset records for nodes in the bases
specified by the "noderange" argument. This is to ensure that
phase-only updates for nodes the client has are available to the
client, even if no new changesets will be transferred.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4483
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:01:36 -0700] rev 39647
exchangev2: fetch changeset revisions
All Mercurial repository data is derived from changesets:
you can't do anything unless you have changesets. Therefore,
it makes sense for changesets to be the first piece of data
that we transfer as part of pull.
To do this, we call our new "changesetdata" command, requesting
parents and revision data. This gives us all the data that a
changegroup delta group would give us. We simply normalize
this data into what addgroup() expects and call that API on
the changelog to bulk insert revisions into the changelog.
Code in this commit is heavily borrowed from
changegroup.cg1unpacker.apply().
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4482
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:01:16 -0700] rev 39646
wireprotov2: define and implement "changesetdata" command
This commit introduces the "changesetdata" wire protocol command.
The role of the command is to expose data associated with changelog
revisions, including the raw revision data itself.
This command is the first piece of a new clone/pull strategy that
is built on top of domain-specific commands for data retrieval.
Instead of a monolithic "getbundle" command that transfers all of the
things, we'll be introducing commands for fetching specific pieces
of data.
Since the changeset is the fundamental unit from which we derive
pointers to other data (manifests, file nodes, etc), it makes sense
to start reimplementing pull with this data.
The command accepts as arguments a set of root and head revisions
defining the changesets that should be fetched as well as an explicit
list of nodes. By default, the command returns only the node values:
the client must explicitly request additional fields be added to the
response. Current supported fields are the list of parent nodes and
the revision fulltext.
My plan is to eventually add support for transferring other data
associated with changesets, including phases, bookmarks, obsolescence
markers, etc. Since the response format is CBOR, we'll be able to add
this data into the response object relatively easily (it should be
as simple as adding a key in a map).
The documentation captures a number of TODO items. Some of these may
require BC breaking changes. That's fine: wire protocol v2 is still
highly experimental.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4481
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:58:23 -0700] rev 39645
exchangev2: start to implement pull with wire protocol v2
Wire protocol version 2 will take a substantially different
approach to exchange than version 1 (at least as far as pulling
is concerned).
This commit establishes a new exchangev2 module for holding
code related to exchange using wire protocol v2. I could have
added things to the existing exchange module. But it is already
quite big. And doing things inline isn't in question because
the existing code is already littered with conditional code
for various states of support for the existing wire protocol
as it evolved over 10+ years. A new module gives us a chance
to make a clean break.
This approach does mean we'll end up writing some duplicate
code. And there's a significant chance we'll miss functionality
as code is ported. The plan is to eventually add #testcase's
to existing tests so the new wire protocol is tested side-by-side
with the existing one. This will hopefully tease out any
features that weren't ported properly. But before we get there,
we need to build up support for the new exchange methods.
Our journey towards implementing a new exchange begins with pulling.
And pulling begins with discovery.
The discovery code added to exchangev2 is heavily drawn from
the following functions:
* exchange._pulldiscoverychangegroup
* discovery.findcommonincoming
For now, we build on top of existing discovery mechanisms. The
new wire protocol should be capable of doing things more efficiently.
But I'd rather defer on this problem.
To foster the transition, we invent a fake capability on the HTTPv2
peer and have the main pull code in exchange.py call into exchangev2
when the new wire protocol is being used.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4480