I need some help with the tests failing here.

@yuja Sorry I didn't run the tests after this edit .

I am updating the tests

@martinvonz, thanks for the reviews, but @yuja has asked me to break this patch into three patches. So I guess this is not going to be merged anyway.

@yuja I am adding an --unmodified flag to change to change the mode to grep on the unmodified files as well.
What I am trying to do is ::

def fns_generator():
    if --unmodified:
        for f in ctx:
            for f in ctx:
                if match(f):
                    yield f
    else :
        for f in ctx.files():
            for f in ctx:
                if match(f):
                    yield f

Hey @yuja
Can you explain why you did this ?

Perhaps, we'll have to catch WdirUnsupported error to fall back to the filectx API.

@yuja
So I was working on it, but the way I tried to correct "wdir()" is by handling it as a special case, so introducing an "if" block again similar to this.
But you were asking to eliminate the if/else block altogether, I wonder if there is way ?

@yuja

fix grep -r 'wdir()'

@yuja Yeah, doing it right away, my bad. I should have based it on some revision which is already in the stable.

Since it required some explanation I have written a post on it.
http://sangeetmishra.me/2018/03/26/demonstrating-the-problem-with-forward-ordered-grep-all-in-mercurial.html

@yuja Can you please clarify this a bit more?

@pulkit It is not failing as of now. It's failing on the changes proposed by @durin42, which he assumed wont fail, but that's not the case!

Since the current code just overwrites message each time with the newer. What can be done to avoid losing the earlier message values?

@durin42 Should I make any changes?

@durin42 Here is the output! https://bpaste.net/show/7ccf4a9fea50

@pulkit Yeah, this rather a not so elegant hack. How can it be parsed in hg commit?
As the first message passed is overwritten by the second one at this step only. :/

@durin42 Even I thought of this construct before as it appears more elegant. But it is failing some tests!
Specifically, the error messages are changed in this one.

@jeffpc That means two new lines. Shall I edit this patch to effect that?

added the tests @krbullock

Oh, I forgot adding tests as @durin42 told. Doing that right away!

What I did: @durin42 suggested in the issue page that the error was in the verify function of the histedit.py file. But when I ran through debugger using a revision number, the code was throwing the error before it reaches the verify function. Specifically in the fromrules function of the histedit.py file.
It was earlier only accepting rulehashes, I changed that to accept any revset using the scmutil.revsingle function suggested by @timeless on the IRC channel.

Oh! Thanks for letting me know!
I will keep that in mind.

In D2095#35494, @joerg.sonnenberger wrote:

There was a longish discussion on IRC about this. The problem is that the flags by themselves do not document the interaction of -r and -b or multiple instances of either at all. The change was a compromise trying to address that.

@dlax Yes, but the short summary didn't say what it does! It just says "include the specified changeset".