Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Thu, 06 Jul 2017 14:17:02 -0700] rev 33314
tests: fix reference to undefined variable
The delaypush() function had a reference to "repo" that was clearly
supposed to be "pushop.repo". Instead of just fixing that, let's
extract "pushop.repo.ui" to a variable, since that's the only
piece of the repo that's needed in the function.
I have not looked into why I saw a different result in the test to
start with, but that's for another patch anyway.
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:19:54 -0800] rev 33313
shelve: don't reimplement mergestate.unresolved()
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:37:12 -0800] rev 33312
summary: don't reimplment mergestate.unresolved()
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:26:33 -0800] rev 33311
mergestate: implement unresolvedcount() in terms of unresolved()
This simplifies the method slightly. It does create a full list of
paths while doing so, but it's not a lot of data anyway (besides, I
would think references to strings are no larger than (references to?)
True).
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:26:10 -0800] rev 33310
mergestate: make unresolved() use iteritems()
mergestate.unresolved() is a generator, so it seems better for it to
rely on iteritems() than items(), although it also seems unlikely for
it to make a noticeable difference.
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Fri, 30 Jun 2017 23:58:59 -0700] rev 33309
changegroup: don't fail on empty changegroup (API)
I don't know why applying an empty changegroup should be an error. It
seems harmless. I suspect the check was there to find code that
creates empty changegroups just because that would be wasteful. Let's
use develwarn() for that instead, so we catch any such cases that run
with our test runner, but we still allow others to generate empty
changegroups if they want to.
We have run into this check at Google once or twice and had to work
around it, but I'm changing this not so much because of that, but
because it seems like it shouldn't be an error.
I also changed the message slightly to be more modern ("changelog
group" -> "changegroup") and more generic ("received" -> "applied").