view tests/test-push-checkheads-pruned-B2.t @ 37631:2f626233859b

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

====================================
Testing head checking code: Case B-2
====================================

Mercurial checks for the introduction of new heads on push. Evolution comes
into play to detect if existing branches on the server are being replaced by
some of the new one we push.

This case is part of a series of tests checking this behavior.

Category B: simple case involving pruned changesets
TestCase 2: multi-changeset branch, head is pruned, rest is superceeded

.. old-state:
..
.. * 2 changeset branch
..
.. new-state:
..
.. * old head is pruned
.. * 1 new branch succeeding to the other changeset in the old branch
..
.. expected-result:
..
.. * push allowed
..
.. graph-summary:
..
..   B ⊗
..     |
..   A ø⇠◔ A'
..     |/
..     ●

  $ . $TESTDIR/testlib/push-checkheads-util.sh

Test setup
----------

  $ mkdir B2
  $ cd B2
  $ setuprepos
  creating basic server and client repo
  updating to branch default
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ cd server
  $ mkcommit B0
  $ cd ../client
  $ hg pull
  pulling from $TESTTMP/B2/server
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
  new changesets d73caddc5533
  (run 'hg update' to get a working copy)
  $ hg up 0
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ mkcommit A1
  created new head
  $ hg debugobsolete `getid "desc(A0)" ` `getid "desc(A1)"`
  obsoleted 1 changesets
  1 new orphan changesets
  $ hg debugobsolete --record-parents `getid "desc(B0)"`
  obsoleted 1 changesets
  $ hg log -G --hidden
  @  f6082bc4ffef (draft): A1
  |
  | x  d73caddc5533 (draft): B0
  | |
  | x  8aaa48160adc (draft): A0
  |/
  o  1e4be0697311 (public): root
  

Actual testing
--------------

  $ hg push
  pushing to $TESTTMP/B2/server
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
  2 new obsolescence markers
  obsoleted 2 changesets

  $ cd ../..