Similar to the assistant, this honors any configured preferred content
expressions.
I am not entirely happpy with the implementation. It would be nicer if
the seek function returned a list of actions which included the individual
file gets and copies and drops, rather than the current list of calls to
syncContent. This would allow getting rid of the somewhat reundant display
of "sync file [ok|failed]" after the get/put display.
But, do that, withFilesInGit would need to somehow be able to construct
such a mixed action list. And it would be less efficient than the current
implementation, which is able to reuse several values between eg get and
drop.
Note that currently this does not try to satisfy numcopies when
getting/putting files (numcopies are of course checked when dropping
files!) This makes it like the assistant, and unlike get --auto
and copy --auto, which do duplicate files when numcopies is not yet
satisfied. I don't know if this is the right decision; it only seemed to
make sense to have this parallel the assistant as far as possible to start
with, since I know the assistant works.
This commit was sponsored by Øyvind Andersen Holm.
Let's make semitrusted+:1 mean that, since it cannot be expressed easily
with the current syntax (could use (semitrusted:1 or trusted:1), but that
does not scale to higher values than 2 copy, and also fails if I add more
trust levels).
Thanks to Andy for spotting this bug by just reading my blog.
in= was problimatic in two ways. First, it referred to a remote by name,
but preferred content expressions can be evaluated elsewhere, where that
remote doesn't exist, or a different remote has the same name. This name
lookup code could error out at runtime. Secondly, in= seemed pretty useless.
in=here did not cause content to be gotten, but it did let present content
be dropped.
present is more useful, although "not present" is unstable and should be
avoided.
When there's just 1 client repo, and a transfer repo is created, its
preferred content will now make it prefer all content in the client,
even though there's no other client yet to transfer it to. Presumably,
another client will be created eventually. It might even already exist,
and the transfer repo will be used to connect up with it.
I've designed these to work well together, I hope. If I get it wrong,
I can just change the code in one place, since these expressions
won't be stored in the git-annex branch.
