Is it possible to know who is the user who made a new repository (cloned)?
Not that I know of. Cloning is a read only operation, there's no write access to the repo and no writes happen on the cloned version. There may be methods outside of Mercurial though such as file permission settings or bash histories.
Related
I have a small group of developers and we all develop on our own machines. When we have code that is ready for testing, we merge and push to a RhodeCode installation. The hgrc file for my central RhodeCode repo is set up like this:
[paths]
test_env = /www/mysite/test
prod_env = /www/mysite/prod
[hooks]
changegroup = hg push test_env
so when a person checks code into RhodeCode, the changes are automatically pushed to the test environment. (There's a hg update in the test repo hgrc file, so the code updates there). This is perfect.
BUT.. I would like our RhodeCode admins to be able to push to prod without needing shell access on the server. Is there a way to allow someone to run a "hg push prod_env" from the RhodeCode interface? I figure since RhodeCode has full control over hg, it should be possible, but does this ability exists somewhere in RhodeCode? would it be a huge task to add it?
If not, how would you go about allowing an authenticated user to push a repository to production without shell access? I have been googling, but I can't seem to find anything. I know I could write a php script with a passthru("hg push test_env), but that seems like a permissions nightmare as apache runs as "nobody" and rhodecode owns the repo.
Thoughts?
Obviously, you cannot push nothing. But you can try to add or edit some file from the RhodeCode interface (which allows this to do) at the prod_env. This should cause local commit and push without accessing a shell.
For those looking at this question, here's how I solved it:
Wrote a passworded page in PHP with a button that executes this code:
shell_exec('hg pull -R ../wp-content/themes/2014');
I then put hg update in the hgrc file for the prod website, and made the web user and authorized user of the repository.
It works pretty good - i have slight security concerns because of the resulting file ownership, but assuming the PHP follows proper practice, there aren't any problems.
What are all steps required to validate commit message with set of regular expressions?
We want to work in semi-centralized set-up so I need a solution for the developer clone (local repository) and for our central clone (global repository). I read about Mercurial Hooks but I am a little bit lost how to put all things together.
For local repository I need a way to distribute validation script across my developers. I know that hooks do not propagate when cloning so I need to a way to "enable" them in each fresh clone. It would be done as a part of our PrepareEnvironement.bat script that we run anyway on each clean clone.
To be double safe I need similar validation on my global repository. It should not be possible to push into global repository commit that are not validating. I can configure it manually - it is one time job.
I am on Windows so installing anything except TortoiseHG should not be required. It was already a fight to get Mercurial deployed. Any other dependencies are not welcomed.
You can use the Spellcheck example as a starting point. In each developer's configuration, you need to use the following hooks:
pretxnchangegroup - Runs after a group of changesets has been brought into local from another repository, but before it becomes permanent.
pretxncommit - Runs after a new changeset has been created in local, but before it becomes permanent.
For the centralized repo, I think you only need the pretxnchangegroup hook unless commits can happen on the server, too. However, you will need the Histedit extension for each of the developers if the remote repo is the one rejecting one or more of the changesets being pushed. This extension allows them to "edit" already committed changesets. I would think in most cases, the local hooks will catch the issue, but like you said, "just in case."
More details about handling events with hooks can be found in the Hg Book.
I'm new to Perforce and Mercurial, so bear with me. I would like to use Mercurial to interface with Perforce in the following way:
I check-out a local Perforce workspace using the P4V client. I then clone a Mercurial repo of that workspace, and use this cloned repo for all my work. When I need updated files, I would first update the local Perforce workspace, and then have the Mercurial repo pull from that. When I'm ready to commit, I push my changes to the local Perforce workspace. Then I use the P4V client to commit my changes in the Perforce workspace to the Perforce depot. Essentially, the local Perforce workspace is a proxy for the Perforce repot.
The reason behind this set-up (versus the common scenario of directly pulling from and pushing to the Perforce repot) is that there is some configuration I need to do via the P4V client (such as mapping/renaming files and directories).
I've looked at the convert and perfarce extensions, but I'm not quite sure they do what I want. They seem to do a one-time conversion, and then thereafter they talk directly to the Perforce repot. Any help would be appreciated.
Convert does an incremental conversion, where it will convert only new changes, but it's unidirectional only (perforce -> mercurial).
I've not looked at the perfarce extension, but it's my understanding that's it's built for a bi-directional, continuous process -- you might want to look at it again.
Alternately, the non-extension options on the Working with Subversion page in the mercurial wiki, details a process for using Mercurial alongside/atop Subversion w/o them interacting in any way except for the file working directory. That's probably very similar to what you're looking to do.
The Perfarce extension should do what you want. I'm also experimenting with a similar setup, and I can pull & push to Perforce quite happily.
I must admit I am having issues with local config files and how they operate in this environment, but there's a couple of other answers here on SO that appear to address this.
I would recommend you give Perfarce a go first, before reverting to anything more manual.
I'd like to set up a mercurial repository in a clearcase static view directory. My plan is to clone from that directory, do all my real work in a mercurial repo and then push my changes back to the shared Hg/Clearcase dir.
I'd like to hear general suggestions on how this might work best, but I foresee one specific problem: Clearcase locks files as read-only until they are checked-out. They way I'd like it to work is to set up a mercurial hook to checkout the file before the push is completed and roll-back the push if the checkout doesn't work.
Should I be looking at the pretxncommit hook? Or the pull hook? Also, I'm not quite clear on how to write the actual hooks either. I know the clearcase command, but I'm not sure how to contruct the hook to pass in the filename for each file in the changeset.
Suggestions?
The question I just answered 2 days ago: How to bridge git to ClearCase? can gives you an illustration of the process.
I like to take the ClearCase checkout/checkin step separate from the DVCS work:
I will unlock files as I need them within the DVCS repo (made directly within the snapshot view), and then update the snapshot view, which will tells me the "hijacked" files (which I can the easily checkout and checkin through the cleartool update GUI).
But if you have clone you DVCS repo somewhere else, and push it back to a local repo which is not the ClearCase snapshot view, what you could do is simply copy back the view.dat hidden file of your snapshot view at the root directory of the DVCS repo.
That simple file is enough to transform back the local repo in a ClearCase snashot view!
Then you make all the files read-only (except those modified after a certain date, i.e. the time when you started working), to avoid ClearCase considering all the files as hijacked.
The rest is similar to the first approach: update, checkout/checkin.
So, I'm trying to checkout just the TestNG plugin from the Netbeans contrib repository. (Or is it module? I'm new to Mercurial, so I don't really know the lingo yet.)
When I run the following command...
hg clone http://hg.netbeans.org/main/contrib/
...I get the entire repository, which contains all of the the contrib plug-ins. Is it possible to just pull this location?
http://hg.netbeans.org/main/contrib/file/tip/testng/
Thanks!
This concept is called "narrow cloning" and no, it's not possible at the moment in Mercurial.
It's on the radar of some of us that contribute to Mercurial but it's a hard problem to solve. For example:
How do you calculate the hash of any new commits you make if you don't have all of the files in the repo?
What happens if you try to view the history of a file in contrib/testng if that file was moved from another folder?
I'm not sure, but I think the answer in the general case is "probably not".
If the repository is local (it doesn't sound like it is in your case), you can do something like:
hg archive -R /path/to/my/repo -I /path/to/my/repo/folder/i/want export-folder-name
(The command would need to be something that exports non-VC'd files, rather than creating a partial repo, since the .hg stuff is stored once at the toplevel, rather than in pieces in each folder as SVN does.)
It doesn't work on remote repositories, though. Neither does "hg log", and the hg folks explained why:
Imagine I send a log -p command to http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6, which is
approaching 100k changesets. At one diff per second (lots of seeking), this will
take about 3 hours of CPU/disk time on the server, nevermind metric tons of
bandwidth. It would be faster and simpler for everyone just to clone the repo
and do the log locally.
I suspect hg archive can't work remotely for the same reason.