view tests/test-bookmarks-rebase.t @ 30435:b86a448a2965

zstd: vendor python-zstandard 0.5.0

As the commit message for the previous changeset says, we wish
for zstd to be a 1st class citizen in Mercurial. To make that
happen, we need to enable Python to talk to the zstd C API. And
that requires bindings.

This commit vendors a copy of existing Python bindings. Why do we
need to vendor? As the commit message of the previous commit says,
relying on systems in the wild to have the bindings or zstd present
is a losing proposition. By distributing the zstd and bindings with
Mercurial, we significantly increase our chances that zstd will
work. Since zstd will deliver a better end-user experience by
achieving better performance, this benefits our users. Another
reason is that the Python bindings still aren't stable and the
API is somewhat fluid. While Mercurial could be coded to target
multiple versions of the Python bindings, it is safer to bundle
an explicit, known working version.

The added Python bindings are mostly a fully-featured interface
to the zstd C API. They allow one-shot operations, streaming,
reading and writing from objects implements the file object
protocol, dictionary compression, control over low-level compression
parameters, and more. The Python bindings work on Python 2.6,
2.7, and 3.3+ and have been tested on Linux and Windows. There are
CFFI bindings, but they are lacking compared to the C extension.
Upstream work will be needed before we can support zstd with PyPy.
But it will be possible.

The files added in this commit come from Git commit
e637c1b214d5f869cf8116c550dcae23ec13b677 from
https://github.com/indygreg/python-zstandard and are added without
modifications. Some files from the upstream repository have been
omitted, namely files related to continuous integration.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm the maintainer of the
"python-zstandard" project and have authored 100% of the code
added in this commit. Unfortunately, the Python bindings have
not been formally code reviewed by anyone. While I've tested
much of the code thoroughly (I even have tests that fuzz APIs),
there's a good chance there are bugs, memory leaks, not well
thought out APIs, etc. If someone wants to review the code and
send feedback to the GitHub project, it would be greatly
appreciated.

Despite my involvement with both projects, my opinions of code
style differ from Mercurial's. The code in this commit introduces
numerous code style violations in Mercurial's linters. So, the code
is excluded from most lints. However, some violations I agree with.
These have been added to the known violations ignore list for now.

  $ echo "[extensions]" >> $HGRCPATH
  $ echo "rebase=" >> $HGRCPATH

initialize repository

  $ hg init

  $ echo 'a' > a
  $ hg ci -A -m "0"
  adding a

  $ echo 'b' > b
  $ hg ci -A -m "1"
  adding b

  $ hg up 0
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo 'c' > c
  $ hg ci -A -m "2"
  adding c
  created new head

  $ echo 'd' > d
  $ hg ci -A -m "3"
  adding d

  $ hg bookmark -r 1 one
  $ hg bookmark -r 3 two
  $ hg up -q two

bookmark list

  $ hg bookmark
     one                       1:925d80f479bb
   * two                       3:2ae46b1d99a7

rebase

  $ hg rebase -s two -d one
  rebasing 3:2ae46b1d99a7 "3" (tip two)
  saved backup bundle to $TESTTMP/.hg/strip-backup/2ae46b1d99a7-e6b057bc-backup.hg (glob)

  $ hg log
  changeset:   3:42e5ed2cdcf4
  bookmark:    two
  tag:         tip
  parent:      1:925d80f479bb
  user:        test
  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
  summary:     3
  
  changeset:   2:db815d6d32e6
  parent:      0:f7b1eb17ad24
  user:        test
  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
  summary:     2
  
  changeset:   1:925d80f479bb
  bookmark:    one
  user:        test
  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
  summary:     1
  
  changeset:   0:f7b1eb17ad24
  user:        test
  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
  summary:     0
  
aborted rebase should restore active bookmark.

  $ hg up 1
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  (leaving bookmark two)
  $ echo 'e' > d
  $ hg ci -A -m "4"
  adding d
  created new head
  $ hg bookmark three
  $ hg rebase -s three -d two
  rebasing 4:dd7c838e8362 "4" (tip three)
  merging d
  warning: conflicts while merging d! (edit, then use 'hg resolve --mark')
  unresolved conflicts (see hg resolve, then hg rebase --continue)
  [1]
  $ hg rebase --abort
  rebase aborted
  $ hg bookmark
     one                       1:925d80f479bb
   * three                     4:dd7c838e8362
     two                       3:42e5ed2cdcf4

after aborted rebase, restoring a bookmark that has been removed should not fail

  $ hg rebase -s three -d two
  rebasing 4:dd7c838e8362 "4" (tip three)
  merging d
  warning: conflicts while merging d! (edit, then use 'hg resolve --mark')
  unresolved conflicts (see hg resolve, then hg rebase --continue)
  [1]
  $ hg bookmark -d three
  $ hg rebase --abort
  rebase aborted
  $ hg bookmark
     one                       1:925d80f479bb
     two                       3:42e5ed2cdcf4