view tests/test-push-checkheads-superceed-A5.t @ 49000:dd6b67d5c256 stable

rust: fix unsound `OwningDirstateMap`

As per the previous patch, `OwningDirstateMap` is unsound. Self-referential
structs are difficult to implement correctly in Rust since the compiler is
free to move structs around as much as it wants to. They are also very rarely
needed in practice, so the state-of-the-art on how they should be done within
the Rust rules is still a bit new.

The crate `ouroboros` is an attempt at providing a safe way (in the Rust sense)
of declaring self-referential structs. It is getting a lot attention and was
improved very quickly when soundness issues were found in the past: rather than
relying on our own (limited) review circle, we might as well use the de-facto
common crate to fix this problem. This will give us a much better chance of
finding issues should any new ones be discovered as well as the benefit of
fewer `unsafe` APIs of our own.

I was starting to think about how I would present a safe API to the old struct
but soon realized that the callback-based approach was already done in
`ouroboros`, along with a lot more care towards refusing incorrect structs.

In short: we don't return a mutable reference to the `DirstateMap` anymore, we
expect users of its API to pass a `FnOnce` that takes the map as an argument.
This allows our `OwningDirstateMap` to control the input and output lifetimes
of the code that modifies it to prevent such issues.

Changing to `ouroboros` meant changing every API with it, but it is relatively
low churn in the end. It correctly identified the example buggy modification of
`copy_map_insert` outlined in the previous patch as violating the borrow rules.

Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D12429

====================================
Testing head checking code: Case A-5
====================================

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 A: simple case involving a branch being superceeded by another.
TestCase 5: New changeset as parent of the successor

.. old-state:
..
.. * 1-changeset branch
..
.. new-state:
..
.. * 2rchangeset branch, head is a successor, but other is new
..
.. expected-result:
..
.. * push allowed
..
.. graph-summary:
..
..   A ø⇠◔ A'
..     | |
..     | ◔ B
..     |/
..     ●

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

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

  $ mkdir A5
  $ cd A5
  $ setuprepos
  creating basic server and client repo
  updating to branch default
  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ cd client
  $ hg up 0
  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
  $ mkcommit B0
  created new head
  $ mkcommit A1
  $ hg debugobsolete `getid "desc(A0)" ` `getid "desc(A1)"`
  1 new obsolescence markers
  obsoleted 1 changesets
  $ hg log -G --hidden
  @  ba93660aff8d (draft): A1
  |
  o  74ff5441d343 (draft): B0
  |
  | x  8aaa48160adc (draft): A0
  |/
  o  1e4be0697311 (public): root
  

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

  $ hg push
  pushing to $TESTTMP/A5/server
  searching for changes
  adding changesets
  adding manifests
  adding file changes
  added 2 changesets with 2 changes to 2 files (+1 heads)
  1 new obsolescence markers
  obsoleted 1 changesets

  $ cd ../..