[PATCH 4 of 8] revset: enforce "%d" to be interpreted as literal revision number (API)

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

Makes sense to me. That's how it would work on the command line too.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 11:32 Boris FELD <boris.feld at octobus.net> wrote:

>
> On 13/01/2019 10:12, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 08:37:47 +0100, Boris FELD wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2019 05:04, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:29:06 +0100, Boris Feld wrote:
> >>>> # HG changeset patch
> >>>> # User Boris Feld <boris.feld at octobus.net>
> >>>> # Date 1547130238 -3600
> >>>> #      Thu Jan 10 15:23:58 2019 +0100
> >>>> # Node ID 38733dd85595782676175141111a42f253efabb6
> >>>> # Parent  427247e84e29c144321d21a825d371458b5d3e1a
> >>>> # EXP-Topic revs-efficiency
> >>>> # Available At https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/
> >>>> #              hg pull https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/
> -r 38733dd85595
> >>>> revset: enforce "%d" to be interpreted as literal revision number
> (API)
> >>> New behavior looks saner. Please also flag this as (BC). It's exposed
> as
> >>> revset() template function.
> >>>
> >>>>      %r = revset expression, parenthesized
> >>>> -    %d = int(arg), no quoting
> >>>> +    %d = rev(int(arg)), no quoting
> >>> 'rev(n)' returns an empty set if n is out of range, whereas 'n' aborts.
> >>> Suppose it's pretty much a coding error to pass in an invalid revision
> to
> >>> repo.revs(), we'll probably want aborts.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we'll need an internal '_rev()' function?
> >> %ld silently pass on these too, so I would rather have %ld and %d
> >> consistent here (and align on the silence %ld behavior).
> > Indeed. I never thought %ld would behave in such way. Consistent behavior
> > should be better.
>
> Through some buggy revset usage in evolve we discovered that the
> optimization to passthrough input directly for %ld changed this
> behavior. In these cases, the revisions are passed as is and
> filtered/out-of-bound revision raise their usual error.
>
> Reintroducing the silent filtering behavior for %ld seems possible (it
> will have a performance impact, but still faster than the previous
> serialization).
>
> However, it is probably more efficient and saner to have these errors
> raised. In this case, we should align all %ld case and %d behaviors on
> the error raising version. What do you think?
>
> I'll try to get a patch out tomorrow to align things in a direction or
> the other.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mercurial-devel mailing list
> > Mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org
> > https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org
> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20190117/a48304b4/attachment.html>