On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 06:52 Pierre-Yves David < pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> > > On 4/17/19 3:49 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 06:47 Pierre-Yves David > > <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/17/19 3:06 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 03:34 Pierre-Yves David > > > <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 4/17/19 4:59 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 16:46 Pierre-Yves David > > > > <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> > > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>> > > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> > > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>>>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > # HG changeset patch > > > > # User Pierre-Yves David > > <pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net > > > > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net>> > > > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net> > > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net > > <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net>>>> > > > > # Date 1551881213 -3600 > > > > # Wed Mar 06 15:06:53 2019 +0100 > > > > # Node ID ed796867a06764cd78a57b2ed0249353f5809319 > > > > # Parent 9bec7491e9b4cabdfa4d264e5213b1f416ec2607 > > > > # EXP-Topic verify > > > > # Available At > > https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/ > > > > # hg pull > > > > https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/ -r > ed796867a067 > > > > verify: also check full manifest validity during > > verify runs > > > > > > > > Before this changes, `hg verify` only checked if a > > manifest > > > revision > > > > existed and > > > > referenced the proper files. However it never checked > the > > > manifest > > > > revision > > > > content itself. > > > > > > > > Mercurial is expecting manifest entries to be sorted > > and will > > > crash > > > > otherwise. > > > > Since `hg verify` did not attempted a full restoration > of > > > manifest > > > > entry, it > > > > could ignore this kind of corruption. > > > > > > > > This new check significantly increases the cost of a > > `hg verify` > > > > run. This > > > > especially affects large repository not using > > > `sparse-revlog`. For > > > > now, this is > > > > hidden behind the `--full` experimental flag. > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mercurial/verify.py b/mercurial/verify.py > > > > --- a/mercurial/verify.py > > > > +++ b/mercurial/verify.py > > > > @@ -337,6 +337,16 @@ class verifier(object): > > > > > filenodes.setdefault(fullpath, > > > > {}).setdefault(fn, lr) > > > > except Exception as inst: > > > > self._exc(lr, _("reading delta %s") > > % short(n), > > > > inst, label) > > > > + if not dir and self._level >= VERIFY_FULL: > > > > > > > > > > > > What does the "not dir" mean? I guess it's to do this > > check only > > > for the > > > > root directory when using tree manifests. Should we do it > > for all > > > > directories? > > > > > > That is used earlier in the same function to denote "the root > > > manifest". > > > I think check the root manifest will trigger checks of the > > sub manifest > > > but I am not sure, I am not too familiar tree manifest. > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure it's about tree manifests. I asked just to make > sure > > > since it surprised me that you used that as part of the condition > > here. > > > > I know it is about tree manifest, I am reusing a pattern used by > > earlier > > code. > > > > > Can we double > > > check/fix this as a follow up ? > > > > > > > > > It should be easy to check (just add a print statement and run > > tests, > > > for example), so I don't see much reason to fix such a simple > > thing in a > > > follow-up. > > > > The question here is "Does reading the top level manifest will > > validated > > the content of the sub manifest too". I don't know how reliably to > > check > > it in a reasonable amount of time. I am not exposed to any tree > > manifest > > user myself. > > > > > > Ah, no, it won't read sub manifests. You're simply skipping sub > > manifests by including the "not dir" check. > > so should we just drop the "not dir" ? > Yes, that's what I would have expected. > -- > Pierre-Yves David >
_______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
