Every one of these did by hand what focusing the list now does on its
own: five hand-added scroll requests, and four origin resets that paired
a "select the first item" with a "and show the top of the list".
The scroll that the commits refresh performed when it found the selected
commit at a new index goes too. It is now unconditional for a foreground
refresh, and deliberately absent for a background one: when an agent
commits in another window, we would rather see the new commits arrive
than have the view yank itself back to the commit we had selected.
The one origin reset that stays is the one in ReApplyFilter, which runs
as part of a refresh and so can't rely on the refresh scrolling.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
With sync vs async now derived from the calling thread, the Mode field
and its SYNC/ASYNC constants no longer carry any information: Refresh is
always async, RefreshFromWorker always sync. Drop the field, the type,
and the Mode argument at every call site, and reduce the debug log's
mode name to a plain sync/async derived from calledFromWorker.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The existing diff parser incorrectly treated subsequent lines beginning
with "---" as filename headers while processing hunks. This caused
corruption when dashed lines appeared within diffs themselves.
Restrict filename detection to only occur between hunks.
Also, fix two other commands that stage all files under the hood:
- when continuing a rebase after resolving conflicts, we auto-stage all files,
but in this case we never want to include untracked files, regardless of the
filter
- likewise, pressing ctrl-f to find a base commit for fixup stages all files for
convenience, but again, this should only stage files that are already tracked
Refresh is one of those functions that shouldn't require error handling (similar
to triggering a redraw of the UI, see
https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/issues/3887).
As far as I see, the only reason why Refresh can currently return an error is
that the Then function returns one. The actual refresh errors, e.g. from the git
calls that are made to fetch data, are already logged and swallowed. Most of the
Then functions do only UI stuff such as selecting a list item, and always return
nil; there's only one that can return an error (updating the rebase todo file in
LocalCommitsController.startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit); it's not a critical
error if this fails, it is only used for setting rebase todo items to "edit"
when you start an interactive rebase by pressing 'e' on a range selection of
commits. We simply log this error instead of returning it.
Apparently this was an attempt at working around go's lack of default arguments,
but it's very unidiomatic and a bit confusing. Make it a normal parameter
instead, so all clients have to pass it explicitly.
This might seem controversial; in many cases the client code gets longer,
because it needs an extra line for an explicit `return nil`. I still prefer
this, because it makes it clearer which calls can return errors.
If exactly one candidate from inside the current branch is found, we return that
one even if there are also hunks belonging to master commits; we disregard those
in this case.
Copy the slice into a variable and use that throughout the whole operation; this
makes us a little more robust against the model refreshing concurrently.
We aren't using them, yet, except for deciding whether to show the warning about
hunks with only added lines.
Add a bit of test coverage for parseDiff while we're at it.
The only time we should call SetSelectedLineIdx is when we are happy for a
select range to be retained which means things like moving the selected line
index to top top/bottom or up/down a page as the user navigates.
But in every other case we should now call SetSelection because that will
set the selected index and cancel the range which is almost always what we
want.
The algorithm works by blaming the deleted lines, so if a hunk contains only
added lines, we can only hope that it also belongs in the same commit. Warn the
user about this.
Note: the warning might be overly agressive, we'll have to see if this is
annoying. The reason is that it depends on the diff context size whether added
lines go into their own hunk or are grouped together with other added or deleted
lines into one hunk. However, our algorithm uses a diff context size of 0,
because that makes it easiest to parse the diff; this results in hunks having
only added lines more often than what the user sees. For example, moving a line
of code down by two lines will likely result in a single hunk for the user, but
in two hunks for our algorithm. On the other hand, being this strict makes the
warning consistent. We could consider using the user's diff context size in the
algorithm, but then it would depend on the current context size whether the
warning appears, which could be confusing. Plus, it would make the algorithm
quite a bit more complicated.
