On 10/05/2016 05:56 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote:
On 10/3/2016 3:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:# HG changeset patch # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> # Date 1472004833 -7200 # Wed Aug 24 04:13:53 2016 +0200 # Node ID efd8013b1521399d07ca956c1cba7bd9f7dfc6e0 # Parent ec6cb977f8e62bf13f86c3a7ebbee182ae50422e # EXP-Topic bisect bisect: extract the 'reset' logic into its own function This is part of small clean up movement. The bisect module seem more appropriate to host the bisect logic. The cleanup itself is motivated by some higher level cleanup around vfs and locking. diff --git a/mercurial/commands.py b/mercurial/commands.py --- a/mercurial/commands.py +++ b/mercurial/commands.py @@ -902,8 +902,7 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non cmdutil.checkunfinished(repo) if reset: - if repo.vfs.exists("bisect.state"): - repo.vfs.unlink("bisect.state") + hbisect.resetstate(repo) return state = hbisect.load_state(repo) diff --git a/mercurial/hbisect.py b/mercurial/hbisect.py --- a/mercurial/hbisect.py +++ b/mercurial/hbisect.py @@ -159,6 +159,11 @@ def save_state(repo, state): f.write("%s %s\n" % (kind, hex(node))) f.close() +def resetstate(repo): + """remove any bisect state from the repository""" + if repo.vfs.exists("bisect.state"): + repo.vfs.unlink("bisect.state")Generally, do we care about the race condition here? Would it be better to do something like the below (In another patch)?
Generally it does, however, we are supposed to have locking before touching this things (which we actually do not, but that will get fixed soon). We could add that double security in another patches.
Cheers, -- Pierre-Yves David _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
