Since the operation log has a root operation, we don't need to create
the repo-initialization operation in order to create a valid
`ReadonlyRepo` instance. I think it's conceptually simpler to create
the instance at the root operation id and then add the initial
operation using the usual `Transaction` API. That's what this patch
does.
Doing that also brought two issues to light:
1. The empty view object doesn't have the root commit as head.
2. The initialized `OpHeadsStore` doesn't have the root operation as
head.
Both of those seem somewhat reasonable, but maybe we should change
them. For now, I just made the initial repo (before the initial
operation) have a single op head (to compensate for (2)). It might be
worth addressing both issues so the repo is in a better state before
we create the initial operation. Until we do, we probably shouldn't
drop the initial operation.
i did the following things:
1. make some changes to the working copy
2. run `jj commit`
3. before i added a description, i decided i didn't want to commit yet. in git, the way to do this is to delete the contents of the editor; git sees that it is blank and aborts the commit. in jj, this doesn't work, because descriptions are allowed to be empty.
now i have the following jj state:
```
; jj log --stat
@ pokrsyvs github@jyn.dev 2024-02-06 21:48:17.000 -05:00 ddd6217f
│ (empty) (no description set)
│ 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
◉ lqqmzmku github@jyn.dev 2024-02-06 21:48:02.000 -05:00 HEAD@git b03bf3de
│ (no description set)
│ config/jj.toml | 2 +-
│ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
◉ xqkmwvwp github@jyn.dev 2024-02-06 21:47:08.000 -05:00 master b673f97b
```
i want to undo the most recent commit, `lqqmzmku`. i'm used to doing this with `git reset --soft HEAD~`, which makes the parent `xqkmwvwp` and leaves the change to `config/jj.toml` on disk while removing it from the git history; basically `lqqmzmku` would go back to being the working copy.
i found that `jj move` does what i want, but it took a lot of trawling the options, it wasn't obvious, and i couldn't find `git reset` mentioned in the docs.
This is #3002 with tests rerun to account for changes
to `strsim`, as @thoughtpolice noticed in
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3002#issuecomment-1936763101
The string similarity changes include an example that
seems better and one that seems worse. Decreasing
the threshold definitely makes things worse.
Follows up 9702a425e5 "Allow negative numbers in the template grammar."
Since we've added parsing rules for operator expressions, it makes sense to
parse unary '-' as operator.
This is to get the latest version of `rustc`, which was released this week.
Needed for follow up MSRV bump.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I9153ea8f184f9b46a073671f623ef9f63a3f5036
I enabled automerge for #2994, but forgot to actually *push* my changes
before resolving all the conversations, so GitHub insta-merged it.
This just addresses Ilya and Philip's final comments on #2994.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Someone on Discord asked this exact question, but these options apparently
weren't documented when they were added in the `0.7.0` release.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
I was a bit surprised to learn (or be reminded?) that checking out
symlinks on Windows leads to a panic. This patch fixes the crash by
materializing symlinks from the repo as regular files. It also updates
the snapshotting code so we preserve the symlink-ness of a path. The
user can update the symlink in the repo by updating the regular file
in the working copy. This seems to match Git's behavior on Windows
when symlinks are disabled.
The `write_path_to_store()` has almost no overlapping code between the
handling of symlinks and regular files, which suggests that we should
move out the handling of symlinks to the caller (there's only one).
If the operation corresponding to a workspace is missing for some reason
(the specific situation in the test in this commit is that an operation
was abandoned and garbage-collected from another workspace), currently,
jj fails with a 255 error code. Teach jj a way to recover from this
situation.
When jj detects such a situation, it prints a message and stops
operation, similar to when a workspace is stale. The message tells the
user what command to run.
When that command is run, jj loads the repo at the @ operation (instead
of the operation of the workspace), creates a new commit on the @
commit with an empty tree, and then proceeds as usual - in particular,
including the auto-snapshotting of the working tree, which creates
another commit that obsoletes the newly created commit.
There are several design points I considered.
1) Whether the recovery should be automatic, or (as in this commit)
manual in that the user should be prompted to run a command. The user
might prefer to recover in another way (e.g. by simply deleting the
workspace) and this situation is (hopefully) rare enough that I think
it's better to prompt the user.
2) Which command the user should be prompted to run (and thus, which
command should be taught to perform the recovery). I chose "workspace
update-stale" because the circumstances are very similar to it: it's
symptom is that the regular jj operation is blocked somewhere at the
beginning, and "workspace update-stale" already does some special work
before the blockage (this commit adds more of such special work). But it
might be better for something more explicitly named, or even a sequence
of commands (e.g. "create a new operation that becomes @ that no
workspace points to", "low-level command that makes a workspace point to
the operation @") but I can see how this can be unnecessarily confusing
for the user.
3) How we recover. I can think of several ways:
a) Always create a commit, and allow the automatic snapshotting to
create another commit that obsoletes this commit.
b) Create a commit but somehow teach the automatic snapshotting to
replace the created commit in-place (so it has no predecessor, as viewed
in "obslog").
c) Do either a) or b), with the added improvement that if there is no
diff between the newly created commit and the former @, to behave as if
no new commit was created (@ remains as the former @).
I chose a) since it was the simplest and most easily reasoned about,
which I think is the best way to go when recovering from a rare
situation.
A subsequent commit will need to handle the return value of
check_stale_working_copy() in 3 different ways, so a boolean will soon
not be sufficient. In preparation for that, inline is_stale() into its
caller, converting it into a "match".
Apparently this previously-beta markdown syntax from GitHub "graduated" to a
full feature in such a way that it it actually regressed in features, so doing
this `[!WARNING]` inline inside of a list is no longer valid. Sigh. Scoot it
up a level in the document, and just make it part of the section and not inside
the list.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
These operator symbols are different from the ones in the revset language. I
have no idea if we need bitwise operators, but we'll probably add comparison
operators. It would look weird if 'x == y & z' were parsed as '(x == y) & z'.
We want to avoid conflicts of interest (both real and
apparent). Better to document this before it happens.
By the way, Ilya and I both work for Google and we have approved lots
of each others' PRs, but we work in very different parts of the
company and I don't think any of the PRs have been specific to
Google's interests.
this greatly speeds up the time to run all tests, at the cost of slightly larger recompile times for individual tests.
this unfortunately adds the requirement that all tests are listed in `runner.rs` for the crate.
to avoid forgetting, i've added a new test that ensures the directory is in sync with the file.
## benchmarks
before this change, recompiling all tests took 32-50 seconds and running a single test took 3.5 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 3.543 s ± 0.168 s [User: 2.597 s, System: 1.262 s]
Range (min … max): 3.400 s … 3.847 s 10 runs
```
after this change, recompiling all tests take 4 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs ; cargo t --test runner --no-run'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.055 s ± 0.123 s [User: 3.591 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.804 s … 4.159 s 10 runs
```
and running a single test takes about the same:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test runner -- test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.129 s ± 0.120 s [User: 3.636 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.933 s … 4.346 s 10 runs
```
about 1.4 seconds of that is the time for the runner, of which .4 is the time for the linker. so
there may be room for further improving the times.
Mostly, I was a bit confused that some of these functions return a
`TrackingRefPair` but don't seem to take into account whether the remote
branch is being tracked or not.
It tries to push all deleted branches, but can only succeed for tracked
branches.
Closes#2946, as there's probably no need to have `--deleted --tracked`
that would only be different in that the warnings wouldn't be printed.
Thanks to @yuja for pointing this out.
Our virtual file system at Google (CitC) would like to know the commit
so it can scan backwards and find the closest mainline tree based on
it. Since we always record an operation id (which resolves to a
working-copy commit) when we write the working-copy state, it doesn't
seem like a restriction to require a commit.
