windows: open registry keys using unicode names Python3 complained it must be str. While here, use a context manager to close the key- it wouldn't wrap at 80 characters the old way, and would have had to move anyway.

py3: byteify strings in pycompat These surfaced when disabling the source transformer to debug the problems in win32.py. ./contrib/byteify-strings.py found a couple false positives, so I marked them with r'' explicitly (in case I'm wrong). # skip-blame since this is just b'' and r'' prefixing

wireprotov2: let clients drive delta behavior Previously, the "manifestdata" and "filedata" commands assumed the receiver had all parent revisions for requested nodes. Unless the revision had no parents, they emitted a delta instead of a fulltext. This strategy isn't appropriate for shallow clones and for clients that only want to access fulltext revision data for a single node without fetching their parent revisions. This commit adds an "haveparents" argument to the "manifestdata" and "filedata" commands that controls delta generation behavior. Unless "haveparents" is set, the server assumes that the client doesn't have parent revisions unless they were previously sent as part of the current group of revisions. This change allows the fulltext revision data of any individual revision to be obtained. This will facilitate shallow clones and other data retrieval strategies that don't require all previous revisions of an entity to be fetched. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4492

exchangev2: fetch file revisions Now that the server has an API for fetching file data, we can call into it to fetch file revisions. The implementation is relatively straightforward: we examine the manifests that we fetched and find all new file revisions referenced by them. We build up a mapping from file path to file nodes to manifest node. (The mapping to first manifest node allows us to map back to first changelog node/revision, which is used for the linkrev.) Once that map is built up, we iterate over it in a deterministic manner and fetch and store file data. The code is very similar to manifest fetching. So similar that we could probably extract the common bits into a generic function. With file data retrieval implemented, `hg clone` and `hg pull` are effectively feature complete, at least as far as the completeness of data transfer for essential repository data (changesets, manifests, files, phases, and bookmarks). We're still missing support for obsolescence markers, the hgtags fnodes cache, and the branchmap cache. But these are non-essential for the moment (and will be implemented later). This is a good point to assess the state of exchangev2 in terms of performance. I ran a local `hg clone` for the mozilla-unified repository using both version 1 and version 2 of the wire protocols and exchange methods. This is effectively comparing the performance of the wire protocol overhead and "getbundle" versus domain-specific commands. Wire protocol version 2 doesn't have compression implemented yet. So I tested version 1 with `server.compressionengines=none` to remove compression overhead from the equation. server before: user 220.420+0.000 sys 14.420+0.000 after: user 321.980+0.000 sys 18.990+0.000 client before: real 561.650 secs (user 497.670+0.000 sys 28.160+0.000) after: real 1226.260 secs (user 944.240+0.000 sys 354.150+0.000) We have substantial regressions on both client and server. This is obviously not desirable. I'm aware of some reasons: * Lack of hgtagsfnodes transfer (contributes significant CPU to client). * Lack of branch cache transfer (contributes significant CPU to client). * Little to no profiling / optimization performed on wire protocol version 2 code. * There appears to be a memory leak on the client and that is likely causing swapping on my machine. * Using multiple threads on the client may be counter-productive because Python. * We're not compressing on the server. * We're tracking file nodes on the client via manifest diffing rather than using linkrev shortcuts on the server. I'm pretty confident that most of these issues are addressable. But even if we can't get wire protocol version 2 on performance parity with "getbundle," I still think it is important to have the set of low level data-specific retrieval commands that we have implemented so far. This is because the existence of such commands allows flexibility in how clients access server data. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4491

wireprotov2: define and implement "filedata" command Continuing our trend of implementing *data commands for retrieving information about specific repository data primitives, this commit implements a command for retrieving data about an individual tracked file. The command is very similar to "manifestdata." The only significant difference is that we have a standalone function for obtaining storage for a tracked file. This is to provide a monkeypatch point for extensions to implement path-based access control. With this API available, wire protocol version 2 now exposes all data primitives necessary to implement a full clone. Of course, since "filedata" can only resolve data for a single path at a time, clients would need to issue N commands to perform a full clone. On the Firefox repository, this would be ~461k commands. We'll likely need to implement a file data retrieval command that supports multiple paths. But that can be implemented later. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4490

exchangev2: fetch manifest revisions Now that the server has support for retrieving manifest data, we can implement the client bits to call it. We teach the changeset fetching code to capture the manifest revisions that are encountered on incoming changesets. We then feed this into a new function which filters out known manifests and then batches up manifest data requests to the server. This is different from the previous wire protocol in a few notable ways. First, the client fetches manifest data separately and explicitly. Before, we'd ask the server for data pertaining to some changesets (via a "getbundle" command) and manifests (and files) would be sent automatically. Providing an API for looking up just manifest data separately gives clients much more flexibility for manifest management. For example, a client may choose to only fetch manifest data on demand instead of prefetching it (i.e. partial clone). Second, we send N commands to the server for manifest retrieval instead of 1. This property has a few nice side-effects. One is that the deterministic nature of the requests lends itself to server-side caching. For example, say the remote has 50,000 manifests. If the server is configured to cache responses, each time a new commit arrives, you will have a cache miss and need to regenerate all outgoing data. But if you makes N requests requesting 10,000 manifests each, a new commit will still yield cache hits on the initial, unchanged manifest batches/requests. A derived benefit from these properties is that resumable clone is conceptually simpler to implement. When making a monolithic request for all of the repository data, recovering from an interrupted clone is hard because the server was in the driver's seat and was maintaining state about all the data that needed transferred. With the client driving fetching, the client can persist the set of unfetched entities and retry/resume a fetch if something goes wrong. Or we can fetch all data N changesets at a time and slowly build up a repository. This approach is drastically easier to implement when we have server APIs exposing low-level repository primitives (such as manifests and files). We don't yet support tree manifests. But it should be possible to implement that with the existing wire protocol command. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4489

wireprotov2: define and implement "manifestdata" command The added command can be used for obtaining manifest data. Given a manifest path and set of manifest nodes, data about manifests can be retrieved. Unlike changeset data, we wish to emit deltas to describe manifest revisions. So the command uses the relatively new API for building delta requests and emitting them. The code calls into deltaparent(), which I'm not very keen of. There's still work to be done in delta generation land so implementation details of storage (e.g. exactly one delta is stored/available) don't creep into higher levels. But we can worry about this later (there is already a TODO on imanifestorage tracking this). On the subject of parent deltas, the server assumes parent revisions exist on the receiving end. This is obviously wrong for shallow clone. I've added TODOs to add a mechanism to the command to allow clients to specify desired behavior. This shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Another big change is that the client must explicitly request manifest nodes to retrieve. This is a major departure from "getbundle," where the server derives relevant manifests as it iterates changesets and sends them automatically. As implemented, the client must transmit each requested node to the server. At 20 bytes per node, we're looking at 2 MB per 100,000 nodes. Plus wire encoding overhead. This isn't ideal for clients with limited upload bandwidth. I plan to address this in the future by allowing alternate mechanisms for defining the revisions to retrieve. One idea is to define a range of changeset revisions whose manifest revisions to retrieve (similar to how "changesetdata" works). We almost certainly want an API to look up an individual manifest by node. And that's where I've chosen to start with the implementation. Again, a theme of this early exchangev2 work is I want to start by building primitives for accessing raw repository data first and see how far we can get with those before we need more complexity. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4488