mercurial: Changelog

error: introduce StorageError Errors in revlogs are often represented by RevlogError. It's fine for revlogs to raise a revlog-specific exception. But in the context of multiple storage backends, it doesn't make sense to be throwing or catching an exception with "revlog" in its name when revlogs may not even be in play. This commit introduces a new generic StorageError type for representing errors in the storage layer. RevlogError is an instance of this type. Interface documentation and tests referencing RevlogError has been updated to specify StorageError should be used. .. api:: ``error.StorageError`` has been introduced to represent errors in storage. It should be used in place of ``error.RevlogError`` unless the error is known to come from a revlog. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4654

revlog: drop LookupError alias (API) This alias is especially bad because it shadows the built-in LookupError type. This has caused me confusion in the past when reading revlog code. Qualifying all uses with "error." will make it obvious that we're using a Mercurial error type. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4653

revlog: drop some more error aliases (API) These should be lightly used and I doubt that will be any strong objections to removing the aliases. Note that some uses of ProgrammingError in this file use translated messages. I'm pretty sure that's a bug. But the linters don't complain, so meh. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4652

revlog: drop RevlogError alias (API) error.RevlogError was moved from revlog.py in 08cabecfa8a8 in 2009. revlog.RevlogError has remained as an alias ever since. Let's drop the alias and use error.RevlogError directly. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4651

testing: add interface unit tests for file storage Our strategy for supporting alternate storage backends is to define interfaces for everything then "code to the interface." We already have interfaces for various primitives, including file and manifest storage. What we don't have is generic unit tests for those interfaces. Up to this point we've been relying on high-level integration tests (mainly in the form of existing .t tests) to test alternate storage backends. And my experience with developing the "simple store" test extension is that such testing is very tedious: it takes several minutes to run all tests and when you find a failure, it is often non-trivial to debug. This commit starts to change that. This commit introduces the mercurial.testing.storage module. It contains testing code for storage. Currently, it defines some unittest.TestCase classes for testing the file storage interfaces. It also defines some factory functions that allow a caller to easily spawn a custom TestCase "bound" to a specific file storage backend implementation. A new .py test has been added. It simply defines a callable to produce filelog and transaction instances on demand and then "registers" the various test classes so the filelog class can be tested with the storage interface unit tests. As part of writing the tests, I identified a couple of apparent bugs in revlog.py and filelog.py! These are tracked with inline TODO comments. Writing the tests makes it more obvious where the storage interface is lacking. For example, we raise either IndexError or error.LookupError for missing revisions depending on whether we use an integer revision or a node. Also, we raise error.RevlogError in various places when we should be raising a storage-agnostic error type. The storage interfaces are currently far from perfect and there is much work to be done to improve them. But at least with this commit we finally have the start of unit tests that can be used to "qualify" the behavior of a storage backend. And when implementing and debugging new storage backends, we now have an obvious place to define new tests and have obvious places to insert breakpoints to facilitate debugging. This should be invaluable when implementing new storage backends. I added the mercurial.testing package because these interface conformance tests are generic and need to be usable by all storage backends. Having the code live in tests/ would make it difficult for storage backends implemented in extensions to test their interface conformance. First, it would require obtaining a copy of Mercurial's storage test code in order to test. Second, it would make testing against multiple Mercurial versions difficult, as you would need to import N copies of the storage testing code in order to achieve test coverage. By making the test code part of the Mercurial distribution itself, extensions can `import mercurial.testing.*` to access and run the test code. The test will run against whatever Mercurial version is active. FWIW I've always wanted to move parts of run-tests.py into the mercurial.* package to make the testing story simpler (e.g. imagine an `hg debugruntests` command that could invoke the test harness). While I have no plans to do that in the near future, establishing the mercurial.testing package does provide a natural home for that code should someone do this in the future. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4650

narrow: remove narrowrevlog Core now automatically enables ellipsis support on revlogs when repositories have narrow enabled. So, we no longer need to globally register the revlog flag as part of activating the narrow extension and this code can be deleted. A side effect of this change is that repositories will now raise an error on encountering an ellipsis flag when the narrow extension is loaded. Previously, loading the narrow extension on a non-narrow repo could result in silent usage of the ellipsis flag. This could lead to undetected bugs. I think the new behavior is more correct. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4649

localrepo: enable ellipsis flag on revlogs when repo is narrow If the narrow requirement is present, revlogs created for that repository will have the ellipsis flag enabled. This is the same behavior that the narrow extension exhibits. Except the ellipsis flag won't be enabled on repos/revlogs that don't have the narrow requirement. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4648

revlog: add opener option to enable ellipsis flag processor The ellipsis flag processor can now be registered by specifying an opener option when constructing a revlog instance. This allows us to enable ellipsis flags on a per-revlog basis. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4647

revlog: store flag processors per revlog Previously, revlog flag processing would consult a global dict when processing flags. This was simple. But it had the undesired side-effect that any extension could load flag processors once and those flag processors would be available to any revlog that was subsequent loaded in the process. e.g. in hgweb, if the narrow extension were loaded for repo A but not repo B, repo B would be able to decode ellipsis flags even though it shouldn't be able to. Making the flag processors dict per-revlog allows us to have per-revlog controls over what flag processors are available, thus preserving desired granular access to flag processors depending on the revlog's needs. If a flag processor is globally registered, it is still globally available. So this commit should not meaningfully change behavior. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4646