sapling/hgext/record.py

670 lines
23 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

# record.py
#
# Copyright 2007 Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com>
#
# This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of the
2010-01-20 07:20:08 +03:00
# GNU General Public License version 2 or any later version.
'''commands to interactively select changes for commit/qrefresh'''
from mercurial.i18n import _
2013-01-09 23:13:52 +04:00
from mercurial import cmdutil, commands, extensions, hg, patch
from mercurial import util
import copy, cStringIO, errno, os, re, shutil, tempfile
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
cmdtable = {}
command = cmdutil.command(cmdtable)
testedwith = 'internal'
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
lines_re = re.compile(r'@@ -(\d+),(\d+) \+(\d+),(\d+) @@\s*(.*)')
def scanpatch(fp):
"""like patch.iterhunks, but yield different events
- ('file', [header_lines + fromfile + tofile])
- ('context', [context_lines])
- ('hunk', [hunk_lines])
- ('range', (-start,len, +start,len, proc))
"""
lr = patch.linereader(fp)
def scanwhile(first, p):
"""scan lr while predicate holds"""
lines = [first]
while True:
line = lr.readline()
if not line:
break
if p(line):
lines.append(line)
else:
lr.push(line)
break
return lines
while True:
line = lr.readline()
if not line:
break
if line.startswith('diff --git a/') or line.startswith('diff -r '):
def notheader(line):
s = line.split(None, 1)
return not s or s[0] not in ('---', 'diff')
header = scanwhile(line, notheader)
fromfile = lr.readline()
if fromfile.startswith('---'):
tofile = lr.readline()
header += [fromfile, tofile]
else:
lr.push(fromfile)
yield 'file', header
elif line[0] == ' ':
yield 'context', scanwhile(line, lambda l: l[0] in ' \\')
elif line[0] in '-+':
yield 'hunk', scanwhile(line, lambda l: l[0] in '-+\\')
else:
m = lines_re.match(line)
if m:
yield 'range', m.groups()
else:
yield 'other', line
class header(object):
"""patch header
2012-08-16 00:38:42 +04:00
XXX shouldn't we move this to mercurial/patch.py ?
"""
diffgit_re = re.compile('diff --git a/(.*) b/(.*)$')
diff_re = re.compile('diff -r .* (.*)$')
allhunks_re = re.compile('(?:index|new file|deleted file) ')
pretty_re = re.compile('(?:new file|deleted file) ')
special_re = re.compile('(?:index|new|deleted|copy|rename) ')
def __init__(self, header):
self.header = header
self.hunks = []
def binary(self):
return util.any(h.startswith('index ') for h in self.header)
def pretty(self, fp):
for h in self.header:
if h.startswith('index '):
fp.write(_('this modifies a binary file (all or nothing)\n'))
break
if self.pretty_re.match(h):
fp.write(h)
if self.binary():
fp.write(_('this is a binary file\n'))
break
if h.startswith('---'):
fp.write(_('%d hunks, %d lines changed\n') %
(len(self.hunks),
sum([max(h.added, h.removed) for h in self.hunks])))
break
fp.write(h)
def write(self, fp):
fp.write(''.join(self.header))
def allhunks(self):
return util.any(self.allhunks_re.match(h) for h in self.header)
def files(self):
match = self.diffgit_re.match(self.header[0])
if match:
fromfile, tofile = match.groups()
if fromfile == tofile:
return [fromfile]
return [fromfile, tofile]
else:
return self.diff_re.match(self.header[0]).groups()
def filename(self):
return self.files()[-1]
def __repr__(self):
return '<header %s>' % (' '.join(map(repr, self.files())))
def special(self):
return util.any(self.special_re.match(h) for h in self.header)
def countchanges(hunk):
"""hunk -> (n+,n-)"""
add = len([h for h in hunk if h[0] == '+'])
rem = len([h for h in hunk if h[0] == '-'])
return add, rem
class hunk(object):
"""patch hunk
XXX shouldn't we merge this with patch.hunk ?
"""
maxcontext = 3
def __init__(self, header, fromline, toline, proc, before, hunk, after):
def trimcontext(number, lines):
delta = len(lines) - self.maxcontext
if False and delta > 0:
return number + delta, lines[:self.maxcontext]
return number, lines
self.header = header
self.fromline, self.before = trimcontext(fromline, before)
self.toline, self.after = trimcontext(toline, after)
self.proc = proc
self.hunk = hunk
self.added, self.removed = countchanges(self.hunk)
def write(self, fp):
delta = len(self.before) + len(self.after)
if self.after and self.after[-1] == '\\ No newline at end of file\n':
delta -= 1
fromlen = delta + self.removed
tolen = delta + self.added
fp.write('@@ -%d,%d +%d,%d @@%s\n' %
(self.fromline, fromlen, self.toline, tolen,
self.proc and (' ' + self.proc)))
fp.write(''.join(self.before + self.hunk + self.after))
pretty = write
def filename(self):
return self.header.filename()
def __repr__(self):
return '<hunk %r@%d>' % (self.filename(), self.fromline)
def parsepatch(fp):
"""patch -> [] of headers -> [] of hunks """
class parser(object):
"""patch parsing state machine"""
def __init__(self):
self.fromline = 0
self.toline = 0
self.proc = ''
self.header = None
self.context = []
self.before = []
self.hunk = []
self.headers = []
def addrange(self, limits):
fromstart, fromend, tostart, toend, proc = limits
self.fromline = int(fromstart)
self.toline = int(tostart)
self.proc = proc
def addcontext(self, context):
if self.hunk:
h = hunk(self.header, self.fromline, self.toline, self.proc,
self.before, self.hunk, context)
self.header.hunks.append(h)
self.fromline += len(self.before) + h.removed
self.toline += len(self.before) + h.added
self.before = []
self.hunk = []
self.proc = ''
self.context = context
def addhunk(self, hunk):
if self.context:
self.before = self.context
self.context = []
self.hunk = hunk
def newfile(self, hdr):
self.addcontext([])
h = header(hdr)
self.headers.append(h)
self.header = h
def addother(self, line):
pass # 'other' lines are ignored
def finished(self):
self.addcontext([])
return self.headers
transitions = {
'file': {'context': addcontext,
'file': newfile,
'hunk': addhunk,
'range': addrange},
'context': {'file': newfile,
'hunk': addhunk,
'range': addrange,
'other': addother},
'hunk': {'context': addcontext,
'file': newfile,
'range': addrange},
'range': {'context': addcontext,
'hunk': addhunk},
'other': {'other': addother},
}
p = parser()
state = 'context'
for newstate, data in scanpatch(fp):
try:
p.transitions[state][newstate](p, data)
except KeyError:
raise patch.PatchError('unhandled transition: %s -> %s' %
(state, newstate))
state = newstate
return p.finished()
def filterpatch(ui, headers):
"""Interactively filter patch chunks into applied-only chunks"""
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
def prompt(skipfile, skipall, query, chunk):
"""prompt query, and process base inputs
- y/n for the rest of file
- y/n for the rest
- ? (help)
- q (quit)
Return True/False and possibly updated skipfile and skipall.
"""
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
newpatches = None
if skipall is not None:
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
return skipall, skipfile, skipall, newpatches
if skipfile is not None:
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
return skipfile, skipfile, skipall, newpatches
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
while True:
resps = _('[Ynesfdaq?]'
'$$ &Yes, record this change'
'$$ &No, skip this change'
'$$ &Edit this change manually'
'$$ &Skip remaining changes to this file'
'$$ Record remaining changes to this &file'
'$$ &Done, skip remaining changes and files'
'$$ Record &all changes to all remaining files'
'$$ &Quit, recording no changes'
'$$ &? (display help)')
r = ui.promptchoice("%s %s" % (query, resps))
ui.write("\n")
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
if r == 8: # ?
for c, t in ui.extractchoices(resps)[1]:
ui.write('%s - %s\n' % (c, t.lower()))
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
continue
elif r == 0: # yes
ret = True
elif r == 1: # no
ret = False
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
elif r == 2: # Edit patch
if chunk is None:
ui.write(_('cannot edit patch for whole file'))
ui.write("\n")
continue
if chunk.header.binary():
ui.write(_('cannot edit patch for binary file'))
ui.write("\n")
continue
# Patch comment based on the Git one (based on comment at end of
# http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RecordExtension)
phelp = '---' + _("""
To remove '-' lines, make them ' ' lines (context).
To remove '+' lines, delete them.
Lines starting with # will be removed from the patch.
If the patch applies cleanly, the edited hunk will immediately be
added to the record list. If it does not apply cleanly, a rejects
file will be generated: you can use that when you try again. If
all lines of the hunk are removed, then the edit is aborted and
the hunk is left unchanged.
""")
(patchfd, patchfn) = tempfile.mkstemp(prefix="hg-editor-",
suffix=".diff", text=True)
ncpatchfp = None
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
try:
# Write the initial patch
f = os.fdopen(patchfd, "w")
chunk.header.write(f)
chunk.write(f)
f.write('\n'.join(['# ' + i for i in phelp.splitlines()]))
f.close()
# Start the editor and wait for it to complete
editor = ui.geteditor()
util.system("%s \"%s\"" % (editor, patchfn),
environ={'HGUSER': ui.username()},
onerr=util.Abort, errprefix=_("edit failed"),
out=ui.fout)
# Remove comment lines
patchfp = open(patchfn)
ncpatchfp = cStringIO.StringIO()
for line in patchfp:
if not line.startswith('#'):
ncpatchfp.write(line)
patchfp.close()
ncpatchfp.seek(0)
newpatches = parsepatch(ncpatchfp)
finally:
os.unlink(patchfn)
del ncpatchfp
# Signal that the chunk shouldn't be applied as-is, but
# provide the new patch to be used instead.
ret = False
elif r == 3: # Skip
ret = skipfile = False
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
elif r == 4: # file (Record remaining)
ret = skipfile = True
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
elif r == 5: # done, skip remaining
ret = skipall = False
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
elif r == 6: # all
ret = skipall = True
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
elif r == 7: # quit
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
raise util.Abort(_('user quit'))
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
return ret, skipfile, skipall, newpatches
seen = set()
applied = {} # 'filename' -> [] of chunks
skipfile, skipall = None, None
pos, total = 1, sum(len(h.hunks) for h in headers)
for h in headers:
pos += len(h.hunks)
skipfile = None
fixoffset = 0
hdr = ''.join(h.header)
if hdr in seen:
continue
seen.add(hdr)
if skipall is None:
h.pretty(ui)
msg = (_('examine changes to %s?') %
_(' and ').join("'%s'" % f for f in h.files()))
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
r, skipfile, skipall, np = prompt(skipfile, skipall, msg, None)
if not r:
continue
applied[h.filename()] = [h]
if h.allhunks():
applied[h.filename()] += h.hunks
continue
for i, chunk in enumerate(h.hunks):
if skipfile is None and skipall is None:
chunk.pretty(ui)
if total == 1:
msg = _("record this change to '%s'?") % chunk.filename()
else:
idx = pos - len(h.hunks) + i
msg = _("record change %d/%d to '%s'?") % (idx, total,
chunk.filename())
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
r, skipfile, skipall, newpatches = prompt(skipfile,
skipall, msg, chunk)
if r:
if fixoffset:
chunk = copy.copy(chunk)
chunk.toline += fixoffset
applied[chunk.filename()].append(chunk)
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
elif newpatches is not None:
for newpatch in newpatches:
for newhunk in newpatch.hunks:
if fixoffset:
newhunk.toline += fixoffset
applied[newhunk.filename()].append(newhunk)
else:
fixoffset += chunk.removed - chunk.added
return sum([h for h in applied.itervalues()
if h[0].special() or len(h) > 1], [])
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
@command("record",
2011-06-10 12:58:10 +04:00
# same options as commit + white space diff options
commands.table['^commit|ci'][1][:] + commands.diffwsopts,
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
_('hg record [OPTION]... [FILE]...'))
def record(ui, repo, *pats, **opts):
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
'''interactively select changes to commit
2010-04-22 12:24:49 +04:00
If a list of files is omitted, all changes reported by :hg:`status`
will be candidates for recording.
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
2010-04-22 12:24:49 +04:00
See :hg:`help dates` for a list of formats valid for -d/--date.
You will be prompted for whether to record changes to each
modified file, and for files with multiple changes, for each
change to use. For each query, the following responses are
possible::
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
y - record this change
n - skip this change
record: allow splitting of hunks by manually editing patches It is possible that unrelated changes in a file are on sequential lines. The current record extension does not allow these to be committed independently. An example use case for this is in software development for deeply embedded real-time systems. In these environments, it is not always possible to use a debugger (due to time-constraints) and hence inline UART-based printing is often used. When fixing a bug in a module, it is often convenient to add a large number of 'printf's (linked to the UART via a custom fputc) to the module in order to work out what is going wrong. printf is a very slow function (and also variadic so somewhat frowned upon by the MISRA standard) and hence it is highly undesirable to commit these lines to the repository. If only a partial fix is implemented, however, it is desirable to commit the fix without deleting all of the printf lines. This is also simplifies removal of the printf lines as once the final fix is committed, 'hg revert' does the rest. It is likely that the printf lines will be very near the actual fix, so being able to split the hunk is very useful in this case. There were two alternatives I considered for the user interface. One was to manually edit the patch, the other to allow a hunk to be split into individual lines for consideration. The latter option would require a significant refactor of the record module and is less flexible. While the former is potentially more complicated to use, this is a feature that is likely to only be used in certain exceptional cases (such as the use case proposed above) and hence I felt that the complexity would not be a considerable issue. I've also written a follow-up patch that refactors the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This tidies up and clarifies the code a bit (removes constructs like 'if ret == 7' and removes the 'e' option from the file scope options as it's not relevant there. It's not really a necessity, so I've excluded it from this submission for now, but I can send it separately if there's a desire and it's on bitbucket (see below) in the meantime. Possible future improvements include: * Tidying up the 'prompt' code to base everything on the choices variable. This would allow entries to be removed from the prompt as currently 'e' is offered even for entire file patches, which is currently unsupported. * Allowing the entire file (or even multi-file) patch to be edited manually: this would require quite a large refactor without much benefit, so I decided to exclude it from the initial submission. * Allow the option to retry if a patch fails to apply (this is what Git does). This would require quite a bit of refactoring given the current 'hg record' implementation, so it's debatable whether it's worth it. Output is similar to existing record user interface except that an additional option ('e') exists to allow manual editing of the patch. This opens the user's configured editor with the patch. A comment is added to the bottom of the patch explaining what to do (based on Git's one). A large proportion of the changeset is test-case changes to update the options reported by record (Ynesfdaq? instead of Ynsfdaq?). Functional changes are in record.py and there are some new test cases in test-record.t.
2012-03-31 01:08:46 +04:00
e - edit this change manually
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
s - skip remaining changes to this file
f - record remaining changes to this file
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
d - done, skip remaining changes and files
a - record all changes to all remaining files
q - quit, recording no changes
2007-08-10 04:29:16 +04:00
? - display help
This command is not available when committing a merge.'''
dorecord(ui, repo, commands.commit, 'commit', False, *pats, **opts)
def qrefresh(origfn, ui, repo, *pats, **opts):
if not opts['interactive']:
return origfn(ui, repo, *pats, **opts)
mq = extensions.find('mq')
def committomq(ui, repo, *pats, **opts):
# At this point the working copy contains only changes that
# were accepted. All other changes were reverted.
# We can't pass *pats here since qrefresh will undo all other
# changed files in the patch that aren't in pats.
mq.refresh(ui, repo, **opts)
# backup all changed files
dorecord(ui, repo, committomq, 'qrefresh', True, *pats, **opts)
def qrecord(ui, repo, patch, *pats, **opts):
'''interactively record a new patch
2010-04-22 12:24:49 +04:00
See :hg:`help qnew` & :hg:`help record` for more information and
usage.
'''
try:
mq = extensions.find('mq')
except KeyError:
raise util.Abort(_("'mq' extension not loaded"))
repo.mq.checkpatchname(patch)
def committomq(ui, repo, *pats, **opts):
opts['checkname'] = False
mq.new(ui, repo, patch, *pats, **opts)
dorecord(ui, repo, committomq, 'qnew', False, *pats, **opts)
def qnew(origfn, ui, repo, patch, *args, **opts):
if opts['interactive']:
return qrecord(ui, repo, patch, *args, **opts)
return origfn(ui, repo, patch, *args, **opts)
def dorecord(ui, repo, commitfunc, cmdsuggest, backupall, *pats, **opts):
2009-04-27 01:50:44 +04:00
if not ui.interactive():
raise util.Abort(_('running non-interactively, use %s instead') %
cmdsuggest)
# make sure username is set before going interactive
if not opts.get('user'):
ui.username() # raise exception, username not provided
def recordfunc(ui, repo, message, match, opts):
"""This is generic record driver.
Its job is to interactively filter local changes, and
accordingly prepare working directory into a state in which the
job can be delegated to a non-interactive commit command such as
'commit' or 'qrefresh'.
After the actual job is done by non-interactive command, the
working directory is restored to its original state.
In the end we'll record interesting changes, and everything else
will be left in place, so the user can continue working.
"""
cmdutil.checkunfinished(repo, commit=True)
merge = len(repo[None].parents()) > 1
if merge:
raise util.Abort(_('cannot partially commit a merge '
'(use "hg commit" instead)'))
changes = repo.status(match=match)[:3]
diffopts = opts.copy()
diffopts['nodates'] = True
diffopts['git'] = True
diffopts = patch.diffopts(ui, opts=diffopts)
chunks = patch.diff(repo, changes=changes, opts=diffopts)
fp = cStringIO.StringIO()
fp.write(''.join(chunks))
fp.seek(0)
# 1. filter patch, so we have intending-to apply subset of it
try:
chunks = filterpatch(ui, parsepatch(fp))
except patch.PatchError, err:
raise util.Abort(_('error parsing patch: %s') % err)
del fp
contenders = set()
for h in chunks:
2010-01-25 09:05:27 +03:00
try:
contenders.update(set(h.files()))
except AttributeError:
pass
changed = changes[0] + changes[1] + changes[2]
newfiles = [f for f in changed if f in contenders]
if not newfiles:
ui.status(_('no changes to record\n'))
return 0
modified = set(changes[0])
# 2. backup changed files, so we can restore them in the end
if backupall:
tobackup = changed
else:
tobackup = [f for f in newfiles if f in modified]
backups = {}
if tobackup:
backupdir = repo.join('record-backups')
try:
os.mkdir(backupdir)
except OSError, err:
if err.errno != errno.EEXIST:
raise
try:
# backup continues
for f in tobackup:
fd, tmpname = tempfile.mkstemp(prefix=f.replace('/', '_')+'.',
dir=backupdir)
os.close(fd)
ui.debug('backup %r as %r\n' % (f, tmpname))
util.copyfile(repo.wjoin(f), tmpname)
shutil.copystat(repo.wjoin(f), tmpname)
backups[f] = tmpname
fp = cStringIO.StringIO()
for c in chunks:
if c.filename() in backups:
c.write(fp)
dopatch = fp.tell()
fp.seek(0)
# 3a. apply filtered patch to clean repo (clean)
if backups:
2011-04-05 01:21:59 +04:00
hg.revert(repo, repo.dirstate.p1(),
lambda key: key in backups)
# 3b. (apply)
if dopatch:
try:
ui.debug('applying patch\n')
ui.debug(fp.getvalue())
patch.internalpatch(ui, repo, fp, 1, eolmode=None)
except patch.PatchError, err:
raise util.Abort(str(err))
del fp
# 4. We prepared working directory according to filtered
# patch. Now is the time to delegate the job to
# commit/qrefresh or the like!
# it is important to first chdir to repo root -- we'll call
# a highlevel command with list of pathnames relative to
# repo root
cwd = os.getcwd()
os.chdir(repo.root)
try:
commitfunc(ui, repo, *newfiles, **opts)
finally:
os.chdir(cwd)
return 0
finally:
# 5. finally restore backed-up files
try:
for realname, tmpname in backups.iteritems():
ui.debug('restoring %r to %r\n' % (tmpname, realname))
util.copyfile(tmpname, repo.wjoin(realname))
# Our calls to copystat() here and above are a
# hack to trick any editors that have f open that
# we haven't modified them.
#
# Also note that this racy as an editor could
# notice the file's mtime before we've finished
# writing it.
shutil.copystat(tmpname, repo.wjoin(realname))
os.unlink(tmpname)
if tobackup:
os.rmdir(backupdir)
except OSError:
pass
2010-04-03 00:22:15 +04:00
# wrap ui.write so diff output can be labeled/colorized
def wrapwrite(orig, *args, **kw):
label = kw.pop('label', '')
for chunk, l in patch.difflabel(lambda: args):
orig(chunk, label=label + l)
oldwrite = ui.write
extensions.wrapfunction(ui, 'write', wrapwrite)
try:
return cmdutil.commit(ui, repo, recordfunc, pats, opts)
finally:
ui.write = oldwrite
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
cmdtable["qrecord"] = \
2011-05-26 20:00:47 +04:00
(qrecord, [], # placeholder until mq is available
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
_('hg qrecord [OPTION]... PATCH [FILE]...'))
def uisetup(ui):
try:
mq = extensions.find('mq')
except KeyError:
return
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
cmdtable["qrecord"] = \
(qrecord,
# same options as qnew, but copy them so we don't get
2011-06-10 12:58:10 +04:00
# -i/--interactive for qrecord and add white space diff options
mq.cmdtable['^qnew'][1][:] + commands.diffwsopts,
2011-05-22 17:10:03 +04:00
_('hg qrecord [OPTION]... PATCH [FILE]...'))
_wrapcmd('qnew', mq.cmdtable, qnew, _("interactively record a new patch"))
_wrapcmd('qrefresh', mq.cmdtable, qrefresh,
_("interactively select changes to refresh"))
def _wrapcmd(cmd, table, wrapfn, msg):
entry = extensions.wrapcommand(table, cmd, wrapfn)
entry[1].append(('i', 'interactive', None, msg))
commands.inferrepo += " record qrecord"