[PATCH 1 of 4] subrepo: do not try to get hidden revisions

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 12:46 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote:
>>
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Angel Ezquerra <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com>
>> # Date 1385255414 -3600
>> #      Sun Nov 24 02:10:14 2013 +0100
>> # Node ID adb3d2a8dfd8bb1c6531225ef84be55f082bac0f
>> # Parent  1c46b18b0e1c47fa4cecf21b78c083a54ae9903f
>> subrepo: do not try to get hidden revisions
>>
>> If a subrepo revision is hidden (because it was amended, for example) it
>> does
>> not make sense to try to "get" it from the remote subrepository.
>>
>> Note that in order to avoid making the change look bigger than it is, this
>> adds
>> an unnecessary else clause. This will be removed on a follow up patch.
>>
>> diff --git a/mercurial/subrepo.py b/mercurial/subrepo.py
>> --- a/mercurial/subrepo.py
>> +++ b/mercurial/subrepo.py
>> @@ -648,7 +648,10 @@
>>         def _get(self, state):
>>           source, revision, kind = state
>> -        if revision not in self._repo:
>> +        urepo = self._repo.unfiltered()
>> +        if revision in urepo:
>> +            return
>
>
> The right way to do it is:
>
> 1) having a new exception to "FilteredLookupError" inheriting from
> "LookupError" (may need to add a Repo here somewhere),
>
> 2) Catch that specific exception when you need to distinct between "revision
> is missing" and "revision is filtered",
>
> I see only one reason to not request for this approach here:
>
> Why are you not using `if revision in self._repo.unfiltered(): return` In
> the first place ?

I think in this case it makes more sense to just do as you suggest and
do `if revision in self._repo.unfiltered(): return`, since the urepo
variable that I introduced is not necessary.

Would you be OK with a new patch that did just that (rather than
introducing the new exception type that you suggest)?

Angel