localrepo: use boolean in opener options Not sure why we're using an integer for a flag value here. I'm pretty sure nothing relies on values being 1. While we're here, convert to a dict comprehension. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4575

localrepo: move store() from store module I want logic related to requirements handling to be in the localrepo module so it is all in one place. I would have loved to inline this logic. Unfortunately, statichttprepo also calls it. I didn't want to inline it twice. We could potentially refactor statichttppeer. But meh. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4574

localrepo: resolve store and cachevfs in makelocalrepository() This is mostly a code move and refactor. One change is that we now explicitly look for requirements indicating a share is being used rather than blindly try to read from .hg/sharedpath. Requirements *should* be all that is necessary to dictate high-level behavior and I'm not sure why the previous code was doing what it was. The previous code has been in place since 87d1fd40f57e (authored in 2009). And the commit immediately after that (971e38a9344b) introduced ``hg.share()`` and always wrote the ``shared`` requirement. And as far as I can tell, every revision of ``hg.share()`` since has written either the ``shared`` or ``relshared`` requirement. So I'm pretty sure we don't need to maintain BC by always looking for and honoring the ``.hg/sharedpath`` file even if a requirement isn't present. .. bc:: A repository will no longer use shared storage if it has a ``.hg/sharedpath`` file but no entry in ``.hg/requires`` saying it is shared. This change should not have any end-user impact, as all shared repos should have a ``.hg/requires`` file indicating this. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4573

localrepo: document and test bug around opening shared repos As part of refactoring this code, I realized that we don't validate the requirements of a shared repository. This commit documents that next to the requirements validation code and adds a test demonstrating the buggy behavior. I'm not sure if I'll fix this. But it is definitely a bug that users could encounter, as LFS, narrow, and potentially other extensions dynamically add requirements on first use. One part of this I'm not sure about is how to handle loading the .hg/hgrc of the shared repo. We need to do that in order to load extensions. But we don't want that repo's hgrc to overwrite the current repo's. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4572

localrepo: move requirements reasonability testing to own function Just because we know how to handle each listed requirement doesn't mean that set of requirements is reasonable. This commit introduces an extension-wrappable function to validate that a set of requirements makes sense. We could combine this with ensurerequirementsrecognized(). But I think having a line between basic membership testing and compatibility checking is more powerful as it will help differentiate between missing support and buggy behavior. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4571

statichttprepo: use new functions for requirements validation The new code in localrepo for requirements gathering and validation is more robust than scmutil.readrequires(). Let's port statichttprepo to it. Since scmutil.readrequires() is no longer used, it has been removed. It is possible extensions were monkeypatching this to supplement the set of supported requirements. But the proper way to do that is to register a featuresetupfuncs. I'm comfortable forcing the API break because featuresetupfuncs is more robust and has been supported for a while. .. api:: ``scmutil.readrequires()`` has been removed. Use ``localrepo.featuresetupfuncs`` to register new repository requirements. Use ``localrepo.ensurerequirementsrecognized()`` to validate them. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4570