Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:00:23 -0800 transaction: register summary callbacks only at start of transaction (BC)
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:00:23 -0800] rev 35708
transaction: register summary callbacks only at start of transaction (BC) We currently register summary callbacks every time localrepo.transaction() is called, so both when the transaction is started and when a nested transaction is created. That seems a little weirdly asymmetric, because the summary callbacks are thus not necessarily registred at the beginning of the outermost transaction, but they are only called when the outermost transaction closes (not when a nested transaction closes). I want to add another summary callback that records the repo state at the beginning of the transaction and compares to that when the transaction closes. However, because of the registration that happens when a nested transaction is created, that would need to go through extra trouble to not overwrite the callback and report the difference from the start time of the innermost transaction to the close of the outermost transaction. Also, the callbacks are registered with a name based on the order they are defined in the registersummarycallback(). For example, if both the "new changesets %s" and the "obsoleted %i changesets" hooks are registered, the first would be called 00-txnreport and the second would be called 01-txnreport. That gets really weird if registersummarycallback() gets called multiple times, because the last one wins, and a depending on which of the two callbacks get registered, we might hypothetically even overwrite on type of callback with another. For example, if when the outer transaction was started, we registered the "new changesets %s" callback first, and when the inner transaction was started, we registered only the "obsoleted %i changesets" callback, then only the latter message would get printed. What makes it hypothetical is that what gets registered depends on the transaction name, and the set of transaction names that we match on for the former latter message is a subset of the set of names we match on for the former. Still, that seems like a bug waiting to happen. That second issue could be solved independently, but the first issue seems enough for me to consider it a bug (affecting developers, not users), so this patch simply drops that extra registration. Note that this affects "hg transplant" in a user-visible way. When "hg transplant" is asked to transplant from a remote repo so it involves a pull, then the outermost transaction name is "transplant" and an inner transaction is created for "pull". That inner transaction is what led us to sometimes report "new changesets %s" from "hg transplant". After this patch, that no longer happens. That seems fine to me. We can make it instead print the message for all "hg transplant" invocations if we want (not just those involving a remote), but I'll leave that for someone else to do if they think it's important. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1866
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:39:17 -0800 repair: filter out unknown revisions from phasecache within transaction
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:39:17 -0800] rev 35707
repair: filter out unknown revisions from phasecache within transaction I'm about to add another summary report callback that needs to access phase information. These callbacks run at the end of the transaction and some of them failed because they tried to get the phase for stripped commits. The solution is to filter out unknown revisions before the transaction is closed. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1865
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 23:37:06 -0800 repair: drop unnecessary phase cache invalidation
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Sun, 14 Jan 2018 23:37:06 -0800] rev 35706
repair: drop unnecessary phase cache invalidation After stripping the revlogs, we have been invalidating the phase cache since bf7b8157c483. Later, in 8e3021fd1a44, I added a call to phasecache.filterunknown(). I apparently didn't realize it then, but I now think that that call made the existing phasecache.invalidate() call unnecessary, so this patch drops it. Both the test added in bf7b8157c483 and the entire evolve extension test suite indeed still pass. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1864
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -3 +3 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip