[PATCH 3 of 3] revert: evaluate filesets against working directory

[Matt Harbison]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:16:41 -0400, Martin von Zweigbergk  
<martinvonz at google.com> wrote:

> # HG changeset patch
> # User Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at google.com>
> # Date 1427177091 25200
> #      Mon Mar 23 23:04:51 2015 -0700
> # Node ID 23d12cf3fdddf6b57639e6120e96d754e1427a8e
> # Parent  a390c931dda089c51b858bb360f12d4e80bddba9
> revert: evaluate filesets against working directory
>
> As the failing revert tests in test-fileset-generated.t show,
>
> Revert currently creates one matcher for matching files in the working
> copy and another matcher for matching files in the target
> revision. The two matchers are created with different contexts, which
> means filesets are evaluated differently. Then the union of the sets
> of files matching the matchers in the two contexts are reverted. It
> doesn't seem to make sense to use two different matchers; only the
> context they're applied to should be different.
>
> It seems very likely that the user wants the filesets to be evaluated
> against the working directory, which the tests
> test-fileset-generated.t also assume, so let's make it so.
>
> I willingly admit that the largefiles code was modified by trial and
> error (according to tests).
>
...

> diff -r a390c931dda0 -r 23d12cf3fddd mercurial/cmdutil.py
> --- a/mercurial/cmdutil.py	Tue Mar 24 10:27:56 2015 -0700
> +++ b/mercurial/cmdutil.py	Mon Mar 23 23:04:51 2015 -0700
> @@ -2813,7 +2813,6 @@
>                          return
>                  ui.warn("%s: %s\n" % (m.rel(path), msg))
> -            m = scmutil.match(ctx, pats, opts)
>              m.bad = badfn
>              for abs in ctx.walk(m):
>                  if abs not in names:

The revert code baffles me, so I'll just ask instead of breaking  
something... There's a line at the bottom of cmdutil.revert() that creates  
this same matcher, in order to figure out subrepos that need reverting.   
Shouldn't that also use the working directory matcher created at the top?   
(i.e. the line at the bottom should be dropped too)

I was going to add path/into/subrepo style reverting, which requires  
passing a matcher instead of patterns, and I wasn't sure how passing two  
matchers would be received.  That problem goes away if the line at the  
bottom gets dropped.

I'll see if I can add tests for the largefiles code, since I'm not real  
sure what those changes do.

--Matt