[PATCH remotefilelog-ext] fileserverclient: make iterbatch() case work with new store

[Durham Goode]

Do no tests execute this code path?  Can we add a test if not?  That way I don’t break you guys when doing future refactors.

On 5/19/16, 1:58 AM, "Martin von Zweigbergk" <martinvonz at google.com> wrote:

># HG changeset patch
># User Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at google.com>
># Date 1463636360 25200
>#      Wed May 18 22:39:20 2016 -0700
># Node ID e1d21752505c55a83509685159d6ed8d4b50d6ae
># Parent  3df8af03df789dee35c6026fce5ec1a59b43cca0
>fileserverclient: make iterbatch() case work with new store
>
>The iterbatch() handling added in 08ca5042a8a1 (fileserverclient: use
>new iterbatch() method, 2016-03-22) was broken by 06d5f64ccb7c (store:
>change fileserviceclient to write via new store, 2016-04-04). Fix it
>by copying the pattern introduced elsewhere in that change.
>
>diff -r 3df8af03df78 -r e1d21752505c remotefilelog/fileserverclient.py
>--- a/remotefilelog/fileserverclient.py	Mon Jan 04 21:32:21 2016 -0800
>+++ b/remotefilelog/fileserverclient.py	Wed May 18 22:39:20 2016 -0700
>@@ -146,7 +146,9 @@
>             b.getfile(file_, node)
>         b.submit()
>         for m, r in itertools.izip(missed, b.results()):
>-            receivemissing(io.BytesIO('%d\n%s' % (len(r), r)), m)
>+            file_ = idmap[m]
>+            node = m[-40:]
>+            receivemissing(io.BytesIO('%d\n%s' % (len(r), r)), file_, node)
>             progresstick()
>         return
>     while missed: