[PATCH 1 of 2 V2] hgweb: move entry-preparing code from webcommands to webutils.commonentry()

[Anton Shestakov]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:39:07 +0900
Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:22:34 +0800, Anton Shestakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:52:54 +0900
> > Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:13:50 +0800, Anton Shestakov wrote:  
> > > > # HG changeset patch
> > > > # User Anton Shestakov <av6 at dwimlabs.net>
> > > > # Date 1447396536 -28800
> > > > #      Fri Nov 13 14:35:36 2015 +0800
> > > > # Node ID b4c5ca5544c5b51cbe9f616d3821d07ff29f1073
> > > > # Parent  df9b73d2d444ae82fe8d3fe6cf682a93b2c4a7ef
> > > > hgweb: move entry-preparing code from webcommands to
> > > > webutils.commonentry()
> > > > 
> > > > The new function is used to prefill basic information about a
> > > > ctx, such as revision number and hash, author, commit message,
> > > > etc. Before, every webcommand used to get this basic
> > > > information on its own using some boilerplate code, and some
> > > > things in some places just weren't available (e.g.
> > > > branch/tag/bookmark info for the current hgweb revision in
> > > > filelog).
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/mercurial/hgweb/webcommands.py
> > > > b/mercurial/hgweb/webcommands.py ---
> > > > a/mercurial/hgweb/webcommands.py +++
> > > > b/mercurial/hgweb/webcommands.py @@ -141,24 +141,16 @@ def
> > > > _filerevision(web, req, tmpl, fctx): "linenumber": "% 6d" %
> > > > (lineno
> > > > + 1), "parity": parity.next()}
> > > >  
> > > > -    return tmpl("filerevision",
> > > > -                file=f,
> > > > -                path=webutil.up(f),
> > > > -                text=lines(),
> > > > -                rev=fctx.rev(),
> > > > -                symrev=webutil.symrevorshortnode(req, fctx),
> > > > -                node=fctx.hex(),
> > > > -                author=fctx.user(),
> > > > -                date=fctx.date(),
> > > > -                desc=fctx.description(),
> > > > -                extra=fctx.extra(),
> > > > -                branch=webutil.nodebranchnodefault(fctx),
> > > > -                parent=webutil.parents(fctx),
> > > > -                child=webutil.children(fctx),
> > > > -                rename=webutil.renamelink(fctx),
> > > > -                tags=webutil.nodetagsdict(web.repo,
> > > > fctx.node()),
> > > > -                bookmarks=webutil.nodebookmarksdict(web.repo,
> > > > fctx.node()),
> > > > -                permissions=fctx.manifest().flags(f))
> > > > +    entry = webutil.commonentry(web.repo, fctx)
> > > > +    entry.update(
> > > > +        file=f,
> > > > +        path=webutil.up(f),
> > > > +        text=lines(),
> > > > +        symrev=webutil.symrevorshortnode(req, fctx),
> > > > +        rename=webutil.renamelink(fctx),
> > > > +        permissions=fctx.manifest().flags(f),
> > > > +    )
> > > > +    return tmpl("filerevision", **entry)    
> > > 
> > > Can I replace it as follows if there's no conflicting items?
> > > 
> > > -    entry = webutil.commonentry(web.repo, fctx)
> > > -    entry.update(
> > > -        file=f,
> > > -        path=webutil.up(f),
> > > -        text=lines(),
> > > -        symrev=webutil.symrevorshortnode(req, fctx),
> > > -        rename=webutil.renamelink(fctx),
> > > -        permissions=fctx.manifest().flags(f),
> > > -    )
> > > -    return tmpl("filerevision", **entry)
> > > +    return tmpl("filerevision",
> > > +                file=f,
> > > +                path=webutil.up(f),
> > > +                text=lines(),
> > > +                symrev=webutil.symrevorshortnode(req, fctx),
> > > +                rename=webutil.renamelink(fctx),
> > > +                permissions=fctx.manifest().flags(f),
> > > +                **webutil.commonentry(web.repo, fctx))  
> > 
> > Yes, but only if there's no conflict, because otherwise it blows up
> > with TypeError.
> > 
> > However, when it's required to override some of the keywords, this
> > style wouldn't work. I'd rather make everything look similar, so I
> > chose something that works in more cases.  
> 
> It seems we are moving to different directions. I want to eliminate
> these overrides because they are pain to define a single (or a few)
> static table(s) of the template keywords.

Now I see. How easy is it to implement a templatekw table for hgweb? I
have no idea, so I'll probably try and send a V3 of patch #2 preceded
with some minimal changes to get it working. And then we can think
about this problem.
 
> And some of them are wrong. For example, 'filecomparison' shows the
> parent of the parent if the path is removed at that revision and if
> it is modified at the parent revision.

Indeed filecomparison has some overrides that use fctx instead of ctx
for calculating parents and children. Let's assume we can do what
filediff or fileannotate do and use only ctx or only fctx (so far sounds
plausible since the intent of these functions is similar). In that case
we would no longer need to override 'parent' and 'child'. Then, we can
remove 'branch' from webutil.changesetentry (and thus call
nodebranchnodefault(ctx) twice, but whatever, it's not expensive) and
we're almost done with removing all overrides.

But then there are 'parent' and 'child' in webutil.changelistentry().
They are needed for log in spartan style only, and they hide changeset
parent and child where DAG is linear. They seem to be the only
overrides that we can't drop. Any ideas?