view tests/test-bundle-vs-outgoing.t @ 38336:bb7e3c6ef592

phabricator: preserve the phase when amending in the Differential fields

I have no idea if it's better to change scmutil.cleanupnodes() so that it has
the option to either apply a specific phase (e.g. for various --secret switches)
or carry over the phase of the old node.  The benefit would be that the caller
doesn't have to remember to do this.  The con is maybe inefficiency?  I wrote
this up as issue5918.  I'm leaving that open since Yuya flagged it as an API
bug.

Since most other callers already do this, it's the simplest fix.  (It's not
obvious that `split`, `fix` and `rebase` are doing this, but there is test
coverage for `fix` and `rebase`, and experimenting with `split` shows it does
the right thing.)

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
  new changesets 6ae4cca4e39a:478f191e53f8
  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 ..