view tests/test-pull-branch.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.

  $ hg init t
  $ cd t
  $ echo 1 > foo
  $ hg ci -Am1 # 0
  adding foo
  $ hg branch branchA
  marked working directory as branch branchA
  (branches are permanent and global, did you want a bookmark?)
  $ echo a1 > foo
  $ hg ci -ma1 # 1

  $ cd ..
  $ hg init tt
  $ cd tt
  $ hg pull ../t
  pulling from ../t
  requesting all changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 2 changesets with 2 changes to 1 files
  (run 'hg update' to get a working copy)
  $ hg up branchA
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ cd ../t
  $ echo a2 > foo
  $ hg ci -ma2 # 2

Create branch B:

  $ hg up 0
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg branch branchB
  marked working directory as branch branchB
  $ echo b1 > foo
  $ hg ci -mb1 # 3

  $ cd ../tt

A new branch is there

  $ hg pull -u ../t
  pulling from ../t
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 2 changesets with 2 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

Develop both branches:

  $ cd ../t
  $ hg up branchA
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a3 > foo
  $ hg ci -ma3 # 4
  $ hg up branchB
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo b2 > foo
  $ hg ci -mb2 # 5

  $ cd ../tt

Should succeed, no new heads:

  $ hg pull -u ../t
  pulling from ../t
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 2 changesets with 2 changes to 1 files
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

Add a head on other branch:

  $ cd ../t
  $ hg up branchA
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a4 > foo
  $ hg ci -ma4 # 6
  $ hg up branchB
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo b3.1 > foo
  $ hg ci -m b3.1 # 7
  $ hg up 5
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo b3.2 > foo
  $ hg ci -m b3.2 # 8
  created new head

  $ cd ../tt

Should succeed because there is only one head on our branch:

  $ hg pull -u ../t
  pulling from ../t
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 3 changesets with 3 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ cd ../t
  $ hg up -C branchA
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a5.1 > foo
  $ hg ci -ma5.1 # 9
  $ hg up 6
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a5.2 > foo
  $ hg ci -ma5.2 # 10
  created new head
  $ hg up 7
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo b4.1 > foo
  $ hg ci -m b4.1 # 11
  $ hg up -C 8
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo b4.2 > foo
  $ hg ci -m b4.2 # 12

  $ cd ../tt

  $ hg pull -u ../t
  pulling from ../t
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 4 changesets with 4 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  1 other heads for branch "branchA"

Make changes on new branch on tt

  $ hg up 6
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ hg branch branchC
  marked working directory as branch branchC
  $ echo b1 > bar
  $ hg ci -Am "commit on branchC on tt"
  adding bar

Make changes on default branch on t

  $ cd ../t
  $ hg up -C default
  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a1 > bar
  $ hg ci -Am "commit on default on t"
  adding bar

Pull branchC from tt

  $ hg pull ../tt
  pulling from ../tt
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
  (run 'hg heads' to see heads)

Make changes on default and branchC on tt

  $ cd ../tt
  $ hg pull ../t
  pulling from ../t
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
  (run 'hg heads' to see heads)
  $ hg up -C default
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a1 > bar1
  $ hg ci -Am "commit on default on tt"
  adding bar1
  $ hg up branchC
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a1 > bar2
  $ hg ci -Am "commit on branchC on tt"
  adding bar2

Make changes on default and branchC on t

  $ cd ../t
  $ hg up default
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a1 > bar3
  $ hg ci -Am "commit on default on t"
  adding bar3
  $ hg up branchC
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ echo a1 > bar4
  $ hg ci -Am "commit on branchC on tt"
  adding bar4

Pull from tt

  $ hg pull ../tt
  pulling from ../tt
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 2 changesets with 2 changes to 2 files (+2 heads)
  (run 'hg heads .' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)

  $ cd ..