[PATCH] dagop: raise ProgrammingError if stopdepth<=0

[Yuya Nishihara]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:25:18 -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:16:17 -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:06:19 -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Yuya Nishihara <yuya at tcha.org> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:48:23 -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk via Mercurial-devel wrote:
> >> >> >> # HG changeset patch
> >> >> >> # User Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at google.com>
> >> >> >> # Date 1498281322 25200
> >> >> >> #      Fri Jun 23 22:15:22 2017 -0700
> >> >> >> # Node ID d654eefeefdd3df493fa777cbcfe423f17d9d500
> >> >> >> # Parent  fac9941bd542e3621082b157fb2f3aff09cfb1b7
> >> >> >> dagop: raise ProgrammingError if stopdepth<=0
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> revset.py should never send such a value.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> diff --git a/mercurial/dagop.py b/mercurial/dagop.py
> >> >> >> --- a/mercurial/dagop.py
> >> >> >> +++ b/mercurial/dagop.py
> >> >> >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
> >> >> >>      if stopdepth is None:
> >> >> >>          stopdepth = _maxlogdepth
> >> >> >>      if stopdepth <= 0:
> >> >> >> -        return
> >> >> >> +        raise error.ProgrammingError('negative stopdepth')
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think stopdepth = 0 is valid on API level, so I want to change the condition
> >> >> > to stopdepth < 0. I'll update it in flight if you agree.
> >> >>
> >> >> Weren't you passing in "stopdepth=(n + 1)" where n was a non-negative
> >> >> number? I.e. n must be >= 0, so stopdepth > 0.
> >> >
> >> > Yes. There's no caller that passes stopdepth=0. I mean
> >> > revancestors(..., stopdepth=0) => {} isn't an invalid use of the API. Oh, I see what you're saying. It would just no yield any matches, right? So it would be:
> >>
> >> if stopdepth == 0:
> >>   return
> >> if stopdepth < 0:
> >>   raise ProgrammingError()
> >>
> >> Did I get that right?
> >
> > Yeah, that's what I have in mind.
> 
> Sounds good! Feel free to restructure that as you please.

Queued with that change, thanks.