This is an archive of the discontinued Mercurial Phabricator instance.

Differential D9654

copies-rust: make more use of the new comparison property
ClosedPublic

Authored by marmoute on Dec 21 2020, 5:29 PM.

Details

Reviewers
Alphare
Group Reviewers
hg-reviewers
Commits
rHG8fcf07e6bbb4: copies-rust: make more use of the new comparison property
rHG37ce692de554: copies-rust: make more use of the new comparison property
Summary

We deal with the "both are the same" sooner and simplify the rest of the
conditional.

Diff Detail

Repository
rHG Mercurial
Branch
default
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage

Event Timeline

marmoute created this revision.Dec 21 2020, 5:29 PM
marmoute updated this revision to Diff 24493.Dec 22 2020, 9:12 PM
baymax updated this revision to Diff 24504.Dec 22 2020, 9:46 PM

✅ refresh by Heptapod after a successful CI run (🐙 💚)

baymax updated this revision to Diff 24588.Jan 5 2021, 4:07 AM

✅ refresh by Heptapod after a successful CI run (🐙 💚)

Alphare accepted this revision.Jan 8 2021, 9:08 AM
baymax updated this revision to Diff 24679.Jan 8 2021, 6:16 PM

✅ refresh by Heptapod after a successful CI run (🐙 💚)

baymax updated this revision to Diff 25699.Feb 22 2021, 9:14 AM

✅ refresh by Heptapod after a successful CI run (🐙 💚)

baymax updated this revision to Diff 25758.Feb 22 2021, 11:22 AM

✅ refresh by Heptapod after a successful CI run (🐙 💚)

baymax updated this revision to Diff 25797.Feb 22 2021, 5:12 PM

✅ refresh by Heptapod after a successful CI run (🐙 💚)

marmoute added a commit: rHG37ce692de554: copies-rust: make more use of the new comparison property.Feb 24 2021, 11:03 AM
This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.
Closed by commit rHG37ce692de554: copies-rust: make more use of the new comparison property (authored by marmoute). · Explain Why
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
martinvonz added a subscriber: martinvonz.Oct 1 2021, 12:07 PM
martinvonz added inline comments.
rust/hg-core/src/copy_tracing.rs
871

Clippy pointed out that the condition is unlikely to be true :) Same thing on line 874. I'll let you fix because I don't know what it's supposed to check.

Revision Contents
Changeset List

PathPackages
Mrust/hg-core/src/copy_tracing.rs (42 lines)

Diff 24588

rust/hg-core/src/copy_tracing.rs

fn compare_value( fn compare_value(
path_map: &TwoWayPathMap, path_map: &TwoWayPathMap,
current_merge: Revision, current_merge: Revision,
changes: &ChangedFiles, changes: &ChangedFiles,
dest: &PathToken, dest: &PathToken,
src_minor: &CopySource, src_minor: &CopySource,
src_major: &CopySource, src_major: &CopySource,
) -> (MergePick, bool) { ) -> (MergePick, bool) {
if src_major.rev == current_merge { if src_major == src_minor {
if src_minor.rev == current_merge { (MergePick::Any, false)
if src_major.path.is_none() { } else if src_major.rev == current_merge {
// We cannot get different copy information for both p1 and p2 // minor is different according to per minor == major check earlier
// from the same revision. Unless this was a debug_assert!(src_minor.rev != current_merge);
// deletion.
//
// However the deletion might come over different data on each
// branch.
let need_over = src_major.overwritten != src_minor.overwritten;
(MergePick::Any, need_over)
} else {
unreachable!();
}
} else {
// The last value comes the current merge, this value -will- win // The last value comes the current merge, this value -will- win
// eventually. // eventually.
(MergePick::Major, true) (MergePick::Major, true)
}
} else if src_minor.rev == current_merge { } else if src_minor.rev == current_merge {
// The last value comes the current merge, this value -will- win // The last value comes the current merge, this value -will- win
// eventually. // eventually.
(MergePick::Minor, true) (MergePick::Minor, true)
} else if src_major.path == src_minor.path { } else if src_major.path == src_minor.path {
debug_assert!(src_major.rev != src_major.rev);
martinvonzUnsubmitted
Not Done

Clippy pointed out that the condition is unlikely to be true :) Same thing on line 874. I'll let you fix because I don't know what it's supposed to check.

martinvonz: Clippy pointed out that the condition is unlikely to be true :) Same thing on line 874. I'll…
// we have the same value, but from other source; // we have the same value, but from other source;
if src_major.rev == src_minor.rev { if src_major.is_overwritten_by(src_minor) {
// If the two entry are identical, they are both valid
debug_assert!(src_minor.overwritten == src_minor.overwritten);
(MergePick::Any, false)
} else if src_major.is_overwritten_by(src_minor) {
(MergePick::Minor, false) (MergePick::Minor, false)
} else if src_minor.is_overwritten_by(src_major) { } else if src_minor.is_overwritten_by(src_major) {
(MergePick::Major, false) (MergePick::Major, false)
} else { } else {
(MergePick::Any, true) (MergePick::Any, true)
} }
} else if src_major.rev == src_minor.rev {
// We cannot get copy information for both p1 and p2 in the
// same rev. So this is the same value.
unreachable!(
"conflicting information from p1 and p2 in the same revision"
);
} else { } else {
debug_assert!(src_major.rev != src_major.rev);
let dest_path = path_map.untokenize(*dest); let dest_path = path_map.untokenize(*dest);
let action = changes.get_merge_case(dest_path); let action = changes.get_merge_case(dest_path);
if src_minor.path.is_some() if src_minor.path.is_some()
&& src_major.path.is_none() && src_major.path.is_none()
&& action == MergeCase::Salvaged && action == MergeCase::Salvaged
{ {
// If the file is "deleted" in the major side but was // If the file is "deleted" in the major side but was
// salvaged by the merge, we keep the minor side alive // salvaged by the merge, we keep the minor side alive