Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 22 Feb 2023 00:22:16 +0100] rev 50138
large-files: use `running_status` in `overriderevert`
This is the way
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 22 Feb 2023 00:21:57 +0100] rev 50137
large-files: use `running_status` in `updatestandinsbymatch`
This is the way.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 22 Feb 2023 00:19:00 +0100] rev 50136
large-files: wrap reposetup's status in a `running_status` context
This is the way.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 22 Feb 2023 00:41:27 +0100] rev 50135
narrow: use `running_status` in `updateworkingcopy`
This is the way.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Mon, 20 Feb 2023 17:26:41 +0100] rev 50134
status: use `running_status` in dirstate status
This is the way.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Mon, 20 Feb 2023 17:22:57 +0100] rev 50133
status: pre-indent the dirstate status code
This make the next changeset clearer.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:18:07 +0100] rev 50132
dirstate: introduce a (noop) running_status context
Let us start with a simplistic context so we can scope the appropriate code
before adding more logic.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 21 Feb 2023 22:14:12 +0100] rev 50131
status: invalidate dirstate on LockError
If we cannot take the lock, someone else is modifying the repository. Let us
discard dirstate uncommitted data before exiting the status code.
Having a clean dirstate after such operation seems safer.
Strictly speaking, there is a small behavior change in the following situation:
* process A call `status` outside of the `wlock`
* process B grab the `wlock`
* process A fails to acquires the lock to write status fixup
* process B release the `wlock` *without touching the dirstate*
* process A later grab the `wlock`
* process A can write dirstate update from earlier `status`
However this is a fairly hypothetical situation :
* process A has to be raced
* process B have to not update the dirstate
* process A has to run another *unrelated* operation later.
This seems rare enough to overlook.
I am stating that the two operations in process A has to be unrelated.
Otherwise, collecting status data outside of the lock to use them inside the
lock is racy. Any other process could move things around (eg: the working copy)
making the data collected during status irrelevantor even harmful.
If such code exists, it should be fixed ASAP.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:20:11 +0100] rev 50130
status: simplify the post status fixup phases
With the wlock automatically discarding changes when applicable, we can
simplify the code a bit.
* we perform the fixup operation before trying to grab the lock to narrow the `try/except`
* we no longer need to explicitly complare dirstate identities. We can trust
the dirstate internal refresh for that. It would invalidate dirty data when
needed.
* detect still data invalidation by checking the dirty flag before and after
taking the lock. Doing this is actually only necessary to issue the debug
message, we could blindy trust the dirstate internal to ignore the `write`
call on a non-dirty dirstate.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:35:31 +0100] rev 50129
dirstate: cleanup the `_map` property cache
The removed code was duplicating the effect of `@propertycache`.
This is a gratuitous cleanup.