On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:34 PM Durham Goode <dur...@fb.com> wrote:

> On 10/17/16, 4:13 PM, "Martin von Zweigbergk" <martinv...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> ># HG changeset patch
> ># User Martin von Zweigbergk <martinv...@google.com>
> ># Date 1476745932 25200
> >#      Mon Oct 17 16:12:12 2016 -0700
> ># Node ID b36a81cd4015b9742d1fbb0d5f94207e7a400cdb
> ># Parent  8a864844d5a0c34bdb24d2e098a0cd339e32e020
> >treemanifest: fix bad argument order to treemanifestctx
> >
> >Found by running tests with _treeinmem (both of them) modified to be
> >True.
> >
> >diff -r 8a864844d5a0 -r b36a81cd4015 mercurial/manifest.py
> >--- a/mercurial/manifest.py    Wed Oct 12 21:33:45 2016 +0200
> >+++ b/mercurial/manifest.py    Mon Oct 17 16:12:12 2016 -0700
> >@@ -1386,7 +1386,7 @@
> >         # Need to perform a slow delta
> >         revlog = self._revlog
> >         r0 = revlog.deltaparent(revlog.rev(self._node))
> >-        m0 = treemanifestctx(revlog, revlog.node(r0),
> dir=self._dir).read()
> >+        m0 = treemanifestctx(revlog, self._dir, revlog.node(r0)).read()
> >         m1 = self.read()
> >         md = treemanifest(dir=self._dir)
> >         for f, ((n0, fl0), (n1, fl1)) in m0.diff(m1).iteritems():
>
> Looks good to me.  What would be required to get some _treeinmem code
> coverage in the tests?
>
>
Twice the runtime? :-) But seriously, I suspect that's reason enough that
we don't want it enabled by default. And I don't know what subset would be
useful to run it on either.

But it was much less broken than I expected, actually. This was all that
was needed. I expected it to be broken before your series even started, but
it wasn't. There is one failing test case (test-rebase-newancestor.t) that
I have not understood why it's failing. It scares me a bit that I still
don't know why it's failing.
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Reply via email to