[PATCH 02 of 10 stable] largefiles: adopt verify to batched remote statlfile (issue3780)

[Mads Kiilerich]

On 01/27/2013 05:25 PM, Kevin Bullock wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:17 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski at unity3d.com>
>> # Date 1359090858 -3600
>> # Branch stable
>> # Node ID d956326990d42e04627d0d8077380c6f69921132
>> # Parent  4ac7648ee50c5a799fec5cd2c48d89b99b6dd044
>> largefiles: adopt verify to batched remote statlfile (issue3780)
>>
>> 9e1616307c4c introduced batching of statlfile, but not all codepaths got
>> converted.
>>
>> 'hg verify' with a remotestore could thus crash with
>>   TypeError: 'builtin_function_or_method' object is not iterable
>>
>> Also, the 'hash' variable was used without assigning to it. Don't use variable
>> names that collide with Python built-in functions. Instead we use 'expecthash'
>> as in localstore.
>>
>> diff --git a/hgext/largefiles/remotestore.py b/hgext/largefiles/remotestore.py
>> --- a/hgext/largefiles/remotestore.py
>> +++ b/hgext/largefiles/remotestore.py
>> @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@
>>
>>          verified.add(key)
>>
>> -        stat = self._stat(hash)
>> +        expecthash = fctx.data()[0:40]
>> +        stat = self._stat([expecthash])[expecthash]
> Hmm, this call pattern starts to seem like a code smell.
>
> 1. Should we provide a _statfile(hash) to verify just one file like used to be possible?
>
> 2. Alternatively, are we defeating batching here on purpose? Should this be refactored to enable batching?

Yes, it smells. But it is no longer dead - it just smells funny.

For a stable fix I prefer to make a minimal change and duplicate 
existing patterns - this and a lot of other things should be cleaned up 
later.

/Mads