[PATCH 1 of 3 STABLE] manifest: fix a bug where working copy file 'add' mark was buggy

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Wed Nov 26 2014 at 3:31:27 PM Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:

> # HG changeset patch
> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at fb.com>
> # Date 1417042456 28800
> #      Wed Nov 26 14:54:16 2014 -0800
> # Branch stable
> # Node ID 82ede43751eae4b870b598326d30105960ce0e10
> # Parent  7f8d27e1f862819b6f13e368c949aa824de5ae45
> manifest: fix a bug where working copy file 'add' mark was buggy
>
> Because the same dictionary was used to (1) get node from parent and (2)
> store
> annotated version, we could end up with buggy values. For example with a
> chain
> of rename:
>
>   $ hg mv b c
>   $ hg mv a b
>
> The value from 'b' would be updated as "<old-a>a", then the value of c
> would be
> updated as "<old-b>a'. With the current dictionary sharing this ends up
> with:
>
>     '<new-c>' == '<old-a>aa'
>
> This value is double-wrong as we should use '<old-b>' and a single 'a'.
>
> We now use a read only value for look up. The 'test-rename.t' test is
> impacted
> because such chainly added file is suddenly detected as such.
>
> diff --git a/mercurial/context.py b/mercurial/context.py
> --- a/mercurial/context.py
> +++ b/mercurial/context.py
> @@ -1061,19 +1061,20 @@ class committablectx(basectx):
>
>      @propertycache
>      def _manifest(self):
>          """generate a manifest corresponding to the values in
> self._status"""
>
> -        man = self._parents[0].manifest().copy()
> +        man1 = self._parents[0].manifest()
> +        man = man1.copy()
>          if len(self._parents) > 1:
>              man2 = self.p2().manifest()
>              def getman(f):
> -                if f in man:
> -                    return man
> +                if f in man1:
> +                    return man1
>                  return man2
>          else:
> -            getman = lambda f: man
> +            getman = lambda f: man1
>
>          copied = self._repo.dirstate.copies()
>          ff = self._flagfunc
>          for i, l in (("a", self._status.added), ("m",
> self._status.modified)):
>              for f in l:
> diff --git a/tests/test-rename.t b/tests/test-rename.t
> --- a/tests/test-rename.t
> +++ b/tests/test-rename.t
> @@ -582,11 +582,12 @@ overwriting with renames (issue1959)
>    rename to d1/a
>    diff --git a/d1/a b/d1/c
>    copy from d1/a
>    copy to d1/c
>    $ hg update -C
> -  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved
> +  2 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
> +  $ rm d1/c # update 'forget' file because it was just added.
>

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is the "update" just a left-over? Or does
it mean that we should update the code somehow? Or should I read it
something like "The file's update action is 'forget'"? Either way, I think
it should be clarified.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20141126/a8dbfff4/attachment.html>