annotate tests/test-bundle-vs-outgoing.t @ 24545:9e0c67e84896

json: implement {tags} template

Tags is pretty easy to implement. Let's start there.

The output is slightly different from `hg tags -Tjson`. For reference,
the CLI has the following output:

  [
   {
    "node": "e2049974f9a23176c2addb61d8f5b86e0d620490",
    "rev": 29880,
    "tag": "tip",
    "type": ""
   },
   ...
  ]

Our output has the format:

  {
    "node": "0aeb19ea57a6d223bacddda3871cb78f24b06510",
    "tags": [
      {
        "node": "e2049974f9a23176c2addb61d8f5b86e0d620490",
        "tag": "tag1",
        "date": [1427775457.0, 25200]
      },
      ...
    ]
  }

"rev" is omitted because it isn't a reliable identifier. We shouldn't
be exposing them in web APIs and giving the impression it remotely
resembles a stable identifier. Perhaps we could one day hide this behind
a config option (it might be useful to expose when running servers
locally).

The "type" of the tag isn't defined because this information isn't yet
exposed to the hgweb templater (it could be in a follow-up) and because
it is questionable whether different types should be exposed at all.
(Should the web interface really be exposing "local" tags?)

We use an object for the outer type instead of Array for a few reasons.
First, it is extensible. If we ever need to throw more global properties
into the output, we can do that without breaking backwards compatibility
(property additions should be backwards compatible). Second, uniformity
in web APIs is nice. Having everything return objects seems much saner than
a mix of array and object. Third, there are security issues with arrays
in older browsers. The JSON web services world almost never uses arrays
as the main type for this reason.

Another possibly controversial part about this patch is how dates are
defined. While JSON has a Date type, it is based on the JavaScript Date
type, which is widely considered a pile of garbage. It is a non-starter
for this reason.

Many of Mercurial's built-in date filters drop seconds resolution. So
that's a non-starter as well, since we want the API to be lossless where
possible. rfc3339date, rfc822date, isodatesec, and date are all lossless.
However, they each require the client to perform string parsing on top of
JSON decoding. While date parsing libraries are pretty ubiquitous, some
languages don't have them out of the box. However, pretty much every
programming language can deal with UNIX timestamps (which are just
integers or floats). So, we choose to use Mercurial's internal date
representation, which in JSON is modeled as float seconds since UNIX
epoch and an integer timezone offset from UTC (keep in mind
JavaScript/JSON models all "Numbers" as double prevision floating point
numbers, so there isn't a difference between ints and floats in JSON).

this structure seems to tickle a bug in bundle's search for
changesets, so first we have to recreate it

o  8
|
| o  7
| |
| o  6
|/|
o |  5
| |
o |  4
| |
| o  3
| |
| o  2
|/
o  1
|
o  0

  $ mkrev()
  > {
  >     revno=$1
  >     echo "rev $revno"
  >     echo "rev $revno" > foo.txt
  >     hg -q ci -m"rev $revno"
  > }

setup test repo1

  $ hg init repo1
  $ cd repo1
  $ echo "rev 0" > foo.txt
  $ hg ci -Am"rev 0"
  adding foo.txt
  $ mkrev 1
  rev 1

first branch

  $ mkrev 2
  rev 2
  $ mkrev 3
  rev 3

back to rev 1 to create second branch

  $ hg up -r1
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ mkrev 4
  rev 4
  $ mkrev 5
  rev 5

merge first branch to second branch

  $ hg up -C -r5
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ HGMERGE=internal:local hg merge
  0 files updated, 1 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (branch merge, don't forget to commit)
  $ echo "merge rev 5, rev 3" > foo.txt
  $ hg ci -m"merge first branch to second branch"

one more commit following the merge

  $ mkrev 7
  rev 7

back to "second branch" to make another head

  $ hg up -r5
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ mkrev 8
  rev 8

the story so far

  $ hg log -G --template "{rev}\n"
  @  8
  |
  | o  7
  | |
  | o  6
  |/|
  o |  5
  | |
  o |  4
  | |
  | o  3
  | |
  | o  2
  |/
  o  1
  |
  o  0
  

check that "hg outgoing" really does the right thing

sanity check of outgoing: expect revs 4 5 6 7 8

  $ hg clone -r3 . ../repo2
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 4 changesets with 4 changes to 1 files
  updating to branch default
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

this should (and does) report 5 outgoing revisions: 4 5 6 7 8

  $ hg outgoing --template "{rev}\n" ../repo2
  comparing with ../repo2
  searching for changes
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8

test bundle (destination repo): expect 5 revisions

this should bundle the same 5 revisions that outgoing reported, but it

actually bundles 7

  $ hg bundle foo.bundle ../repo2
  searching for changes
  5 changesets found

test bundle (base revision): expect 5 revisions

this should (and does) give exactly the same result as bundle

with a destination repo... i.e. it's wrong too

  $ hg bundle --base 3 foo.bundle
  5 changesets found

  $ cd ..