Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:18:15 -0700] rev 37053
wireproto: nominally don't expose "batch" to version 2 wire transports
The unified frame-based protocol will (eventually) support
multiple requests per client transmission. This means that the
[very hacky] "batch" command has no purpose existing in this protocol.
This commit marks the command as applying to v1 transports only.
But because SSHv2 == SSHv1 currently, we had to hack it back in
for the SSHv2 transport. Bleh.
Tests changed because the capabilities string changed. The order of
tokens in the string is not important.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2856
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:25:06 -0700] rev 37052
wireproto: implement basic frame reading and processing
We just implemented support for writing frames. Now let's implement
support for reading them.
The bulk of the new code is for a class that maintains the state of
a server. Essentially, you construct an instance, feed frames to it,
and it tells you what you should do next. The design is inspired by
the "sans I/O" movement and the reactor pattern. We don't want to
perform I/O or any major blocking event during frame ingestion because
this arbitrarily limits ways that server pieces can be implemented.
For example, it makes it much harder to swap in an alternate
implementation based on asyncio or do crazy things like have requests
dispatch to other processes.
We do still implement readframe() which does I/O. But it is decoupled
from the server reactor. And important parsing of frame headers is
a standalone function. So I/O is only needed to obtain frame data.
Because testing server-side ingest is useful and difficult on running
servers, we create a new "debugreflect" endpoint that will echo back
to the client what was received and how it was interpreted. This could
be useful for a server admin, someone implementing a client. But
immediately, it is useful for testing: we're able to demonstrate that
frames are parsed correctly and turned into requests to run commands
without having to implement command dispatch on the server!
In addition, we implement Python level unit tests for the reactor.
This is vastly more efficient than sending requests to the
"debugreflect" endpoint and vastly more powerful for advanced
testing.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2852
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:49:53 -0700] rev 37051
wireproto: define and implement protocol for issuing requests
The existing HTTP and SSH wire protocols suffer from a host of flaws
and shortcomings. I've been wanting to rewrite the protocol for a while
now. Supporting partial clone - which will require new wire protocol
commands and capabilities - and other advanced server functionality
will be much easier if we start from a clean slate and don't have
to be constrained by limitations of the existing wire protocol.
This commit starts to introduce a new data exchange format for
use over the wire protocol.
The new protocol is built on top of "frames," which are atomic
units of metadata + data. Frames will make it easier to implement
proxies and other mechanisms that want to inspect data without
having to maintain state. The existing frame metadata is very
minimal and it will evolve heavily. (We will eventually support
things like concurrent requests, out-of-order responses,
compression, side-channels for status updates, etc. Some of
these will require additions to the frame header.)
Another benefit of frames is that all reads are of a fixed size.
A reader works by consuming a frame header, extracting the payload
length, then reading that many bytes. No lookahead, buffering, or
memory reallocations are needed.
The new protocol attempts to be transport agnostic. I want all that's
required to use the new protocol to be a pair of unidirectional,
half-duplex pipes. (Yes, we will eventually make use of full-duplex
pipes, but that's for another commit.) Notably, when the SSH
transport switches to this new protocol, stderr will be unused.
This is by design: the lack of stderr on HTTP harms protocol
behavior there. By shoehorning everything into a pair of pipes,
we can have more consistent behavior across transports.
We currently only define the client side parts of the new protocol,
specifically the bits for requesting that a command run. This keeps
the new code and feature small and somewhat easy to review.
We add support to `hg debugwireproto` for writing frames into
HTTP request bodies. Our tests that issue commands to the new
HTTP endpoint have been updated to transmit frames. The server
bits haven't been touched to consume the frames yet. This will
occur in the next commit...
Astute readers may notice that the command name is transmitted in
both the HTTP request URL and the command request frame. This is
partially a kludge from me initially implementing the frame-based
protocol for SSH first. But it is also a feature: I intend to
eventually support issuing multiple commands per HTTP request. This
will allow us to replace the abomination that is the "batch" wire
protocol command with a protocol-level mechanism for performing
multi-dispatch. Because I want the frame-based protocol to be
as similar as possible across transports, I'd rather we (redundantly)
include the command name in the frame than differ behavior between
transports that have out-of-band routing information (like HTTP)
readily available.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2851
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:44:59 -0700] rev 37050
wireproto: define content negotiation for HTTPv2
HTTP messages communicate their media types and what media types
they can understand via the Content-Type and Accept header,
respectively.
While I don't want the wire protocol to lean too heavily on HTTP
because I'm aiming for the wire protocol to be as transport
agnostic as possible, it is nice to play by the spec if possible.
This commit defines our media negotiation mechanism for version
2 of the HTTP protocol. Essentially, we mandate the use of a
new media type and how clients and servers should react to
various headers or lack thereof.
The name of the media type is a placeholder. We purposefully don't
yet define the format of the new media type because that's a lot
of work.
I feel pretty strongly that we should use Content-Type. I feel
less strongly about Accept. I think it is reasonable for servers
to return the media type that was submitted to them. So we may
strike this header before the protocol is finished...
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2850