We treat the .git/sequencer/todo file as read-only. Technically it seems it
would be possible to treat it as modifiable in the same way as
.git/rebase-merge/git-rebase-todo, effectively turning a cherry-pick or revert
that stops at a conflict into an interactive rebase; however, git itself doesn't
allow this (there is no "git cherry-pick --edit-todo"), so it seems safer not to
rely on it.
Theoretically it would be possible to allow modifying the rebase todos when a
cherry-pick or revert conflicts in the middle of a rebase. However, it would
introduce a bit of complexity to support this, as we would have to be able to
distinguish between rebasing todos and cherry-picking/reverting todos, which we
currently can't; it could also be a bit error-prone as far as edge cases are
concerned. And it's really a pretty uncommon situation, so it doesn't seem worth
it, and we just forbid all modifications to todos whenever we are cherry-picking
or reverting.
What happens here is that when stopping on an "edit" todo entry, we rely on the
assumption that if the .git/rebase-merge/amend file exists, the command was
successful, and if it doesn't, there was a conflict. The problem is that when
you stop on an edit command, and then run a multi-commit cherry-pick or rebase,
this will delete the amend file. You may or may not consider this a bug in git;
to work around it, we also check the existence of the rebase-merge/message file,
which will be deleted as well by the cherry-pick or revert.
This problem can't happen inside of lazygit itself right now, but this will
change in the future. It will only happen when you stopped in an interactive
rebase on an "edit" entry, and then you perform a revert or cherry-pick
consisting of more than one commit; in this situation lazygit will show a
conflict although there is none.
This is not possible with lazygit yet, as we don't support range-select for
reverting, and we don't use `git cherry-pick` for cherry-picking. Both will
change in the future, so it's good to fix this bug.
It is useful to see if the conflicted commit was a "pick" or an "edit". What's
more, we're about to add support for showing cherry-picks and reverts, and
seeing that a conflicted commit was a revert is important because its diff is
backwards compared to the diff of the conflicting files in the Files panel.
When you are in the middle of a rebase, and you cherry-pick a commit which
conflicts, it helps to be clear on whether you are prompted to continue the
cherry-pick or the rebase.
The situation is that you perform a rebase, and one of the commits becomes empty
during the rebase, in a way that couldn't be predicted before the rebase
started. To explain: git rebase has some logic where it immediately discards
commits if it can tell that they already exist in the branch being rebased onto;
it does this by looking at the patch ids of the commits to work out which
commits already exist upstream. But for those commits that become empty even
though there isn't a corresponding commit upstream, git stops with an error, and
lazygit detects this (in CheckMergeOrRebaseWithRefreshOptions) and automatically
continues the rebase.
This all works fine; I'm adding this test because I almost broke this during
development of this branch, so I'm adding it to guard against regressions.
For #, !, [, and ], the problem is that it doesn't ignore the file because the
special characters need to be quoted. For *, the problem is that it ignores too
much (it also hides the abc_def file because the * is treated as a glob).
We removed prefilling the skipHook prefix in b102646b20 with the intention of
making it clearer that using the prefix in normal commits and typing `w` to skip
hooks are now two independent features.
It turns out that some people liked it with prefilling the prefix and perceive
it as a regression, so put it back in.
But only if we don't have a preserved message; this is an important use case,
when you try to make a normal commit, the hook fails, and then you want to make
the same commit with skipping the hook, but with the same message that you
already typed.
This makes it possible to use date and time in initial values like this:
```yaml
initialValue: 'ruudk/{{ runCommand "date +\"%Y/%-m\"" }}/'
```
I want to use this to configure my BranchPrefix like this:
```yaml
git:
branchPrefix: 'ruudk/{{ runCommand "date +\"%Y/%-m\"" }}/'
```
We keep the same commit selected (even though its index changed because of the
added update-ref todo), which is nice; however, the main view shows the diff of
the wrong commit, which is very confusing. I'm suprised that this hasn't been
noticed yet.
The reason why this happens is that we first do the refresh, which includes
re-rendering the main view diff (with the same commit index as before, so the
wrong one), and then we restore the correct commit index but don't render the
main view again.
Renaming a file inside the same directory shows it with its full path in the
tree view, which isn't what we want. We'll fix this in the next commit.
Also adding a few other test cases for moving files; they show that the display
of moved files in tree view isn't ideal. For example, moving file1 from top
level into dir shows it as "R file1 → file1", which isn't distinguishable from
renaming file1 inside dir. I suppose what we would like to have here is
"R ../file1 → file1" or something, but I'll leave that for the future; here I
only want to fix the regression that was introduced with the root item PR.
The test shows a misbehavior: even though the diff shows "-one" and "+three",
meaning that "three" is the state we want to check out, we get "one". The reason
is that the checkout file command doesn't pay attention to range selections, it
only looks at the "moving end" of the range. Had we created the range by
selecting "two" and then pressed shift-up to "three", we would have gotten the
expected result.
Add verify flag
Add and update integration tests
Rename verify to forceSkipHooks
Adapt CommitSkipHooks integration test to actually use a hook
Remove forceSkipHooks param from OnConfirm et al
Simplify tests
Assert the entire lines using Equals instead of Contains. This makes the tests a
bit easier to read, and it makes it much easier to decide how they need to be
changed when we change the layout (like we do in the last commit of this
branch).
It is true that this requires changing all these tests for any future UI
changes, but I think this is a good price to pay; those adaptions are trivial
and can be done without thinking.
I'm pretty sure that the check for the main view was meant to be done with the
commit selected in the commits panel, not with the first file of the commit
files view selected, so it was pressing enter too early. It's pure coincidence
that the test worked.
This is useful for copying the entire content of the selected file as it was at
the selected commit.
We only add it to the commit files panel; it is not needed in the files panel,
because there you can simply press "e" to edit the file.
This is very similar to the same menu in the Files panel, except that it works
on whatever diff is currently shown in the main view, including range diffs
either in diffing mode (shift-W), or from a range selection of commits.
Change our fake clipboard command to not append a linefeed; that's closer to
what the production code does.
This allows us to use Equals instead of Contains for checking the clipboard
contents.
Finally, use FileSystem().FileContent() to assert the clipboard contents,
instead of selecting the clipboard file and then checking the diff view.
Jesse's comment from https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/issues/4237:
We recently added a new option to check out a commit's branch from within the
commits, reflog, and sub-commits panels:
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a5cf3f2-6803-4709-ae5a-e4addc061012
After using it for some time, I find it annoying that the default option has
changed. I rarely find myself wanting to check out a branch from the commits
panel, and it's rarer still to want to check out a branch from the reflog and
sub-commits panel. Although there may be use cases for this, it is jarring that
something you can always do (checkout the commit) is harder to do than something
that you can sometimes do (checkout the branch).
We've also had a user complain (see
https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/pull/4117) about their muscle-memory
being broken by the recent change, and I have also fallen victim to this. I
don't think that the new branch checkout option is sufficiently useful to
dislodge the existing keybinding, so let's swap them.
The code that tries to reselect the same branch again uses GetItems, which in
case of filtering is the filtered list. After replacing the branches slice with
a new one, the filtered list is no longer up to date, so we must reapply the
filter before working with it. It so happens that refreshView does that, so
simply call that before setting the selection again; I don't think the order
matters in this case. Otherwise we'd have to insert another call to
ReApplyFilter before the call to GetItems, which we can avoid this way.
Note that this doesn't actually make anything work better in the case of
deleting a branch, since we can't reselect the deleted branch anyway of course.
But it avoids a possible crash if the branch that was deleted was the last one
in the unfiltered list.
I renamed the "Reset filter" item to "No filter" to make it look more like a
state than an action, so that it fits the radio button concept better.
When there are conflicts and we set the filter to show only conflicting files,
then none of the radio buttons light up, which is slightly strange. I guess it's
ok though.
This handles the situation where the user's own config says to not show
untracked files, as is often the case with bare repos managing a user's
dotfiles.
It has fields .To and .From (the hashes of the last and the first selected
commits, respectively), and it is useful for creating git commands that act on a
range of commits.
There are two ways to jump to the editor on a specific line: pressing `e` in the
staging or patch building panels, or clicking on a hyperlink in a delta diff. In
both cases, this works perfectly in the unstaged changes view, but in other
views (either staged changes, or an older commit) it can often jump to the wrong
line; this happens when there are further changes to the file being viewed in
later commits or in unstaged changes.
This commit fixes this so that you end up on the right line in these cases.
When pressing `e` on line 5 in a diff of an older commit, we expect it to take
us to line 5 in that file. But we end up on line 2, because the file had further
changes both in newer commits, and in the unstaged changes of the working copy.
This updates gocui to include https://github.com/jesseduffield/gocui/pull/68 and
https://github.com/jesseduffield/gocui/pull/69, which changes views to not have
an extra blank line at the end when content ending in a newline character is
written to them. This makes text views more consistent with list views, which
don't have a blank line after the last list entry either.
The easiest way to do that is to rename the local branch after pushing.
This shows various levels of brokenness for the reset and rebase to upstream
commands: both menu entries display the wrong upstream branch name in the menu
(the local one rather than the remote one); executing the rebase command works
correctly though, the rebase command uses the right branch name. Resetting
fails, though.
We'll fix this in the next commit.
It should have been half-screen from the get-go. I think I just used
full-screen to make demos look nicer. Now that we have a CLI arg for the
screen mode we can make use of that in the demos.
When the user checks out a commit which has a local branch ref attached
to it, they can select between checking out the branch or checking out
the commit as detached head.
Sometimes we populate the commit message panel with a pre-created commit
message. The two cases where this happens is:
- you type `w` to commit, in which case we put the skipHookPrefix in the subject
- you have a commitPrefix pattern, in which case we match it against the branch
name and populate the subject with the replacement string if it matches
In either case, if you have a preserved commit message, we use that.
Now, when you use either of these and then cancel, we preserve that initial,
unchanged message and reuse it the next time you commit. This has two problems:
it strips spaces, which is a problem for the commitPrefix patterns, which often
end with a space. And also, when you change your config to experiment with
commitPrefix patterns, the change seemingly doesn't take effect, which can be
very confusing.
To fix both of these problems, only preserve the commit message when it is not
identical to the initial message.
The test demonstrates that the behavior is undesirable right now: we move the
commit only past the update-ref todo of branch1, which means the order of
commits stays the same and only the branch head icon moves up by one. However,
we move the selection down by one, so the wrong commit is selected now. This is
especially bad if you type a bunch of ctrl-j quickly in a row, because now you
are moving the wrong commit.
There are two possible ways to fix this:
1) keep the moving behavior the same, but don't change the selection
2) change the behavior so that we move the commit not only past the update-ref,
but also past the next real commit.
You could argue that 1) is the more desirable fix, as it gives you more control
over where exactly the moved commit goes; however, it is much trickier to
implement, so we go with 2) for now (and that's what the commented-out
"EXPECTED" section documents here). If users need more fine-grained control,
they can always enter an interactive rebase first.
For non-merge commits we change "pick" to "drop" when we delete them. We do this
so that we can use the same code for dropping a commit no matter whether we are
in an interactive rebase or not. (If we aren't, we could just as well delete the
pick line from the todo list instead of setting it to "drop", but if we are, it
is better to keep the line around so that the user can change it back to "pick"
if they change their mind.)
However, merge commits can't be changed to "drop", so we have to delete them
from the todo file. We add a new daemon instruction that does this.
We still don't allow deleting a merge commit from within an interactive rebase.
The reason is that we don't show the "label" and "reset" todos in lazygit, so
deleting a merge commit would leave the commits from the branch that is being
merged in the list as "pick" commits, with no indication that they are going to
be dropped because they are on a different branch, and the merge commit that
would have brought them in is gone. This could be very confusing.
In 67b8ef449c we changed the "edit" command to insert a "break" after the
selected commit, rather than setting the selected todo to "edit". The reason for
doing this was that it now works for merge commits too.
Back then, I claimed "In most cases the behavior is exactly the same as before."
Unfortunately that's not true, there are two reasons why the previous behavior
was better (both are demonstrated by tests earlier in this branch):
- when editing the last commit of a branch in the middle of a stack of branches,
we are now missing the update-ref todo after it, which means that amending the
commit breaks the stack
- it breaks auto-amending (see the added test earlier in this branch for an
explanation)
For these reasons, we are going back to the previous approach of setting the
selected commit to "edit" whenever possible, i.e. unless it's a merge commit.
The only scenario where this could still be a problem is when you have a stack
of branches, and the last commit of one of the branches in the stack is a merge
commit, and you try to edit that. In my experience with stacked branches this is
very unlikely, in almost all cases my stacked branches are linear.
This is very similar to edit_range_select_outside_rebase.go, except that it
selects commits right after, and including, a merge commit.
This test already works correctly. The reason we add it is that we are going to
have two different implementations of the `e` command depending on whether the
last selected commit is a merge commit, and we want to make sure they both work
with a range selection.
Auto-amending is a little-known feature of git that is very convenient once you
know it: whenever you stop at a commit marked with `edit` in an interactive
rebase, you can make changes and stage them, and when you continue the rebase
they automatically get amended to the commit you had stopped at. This is so
convenient because making changes to a commit is one of the main reasons why you
edit a commit.
Unfortunately this currently doesn't work in lazygit because we don't actually
use `edit` to stop at the first commit (instead, we add a `break` todo after it,
which doesn't have the auto-amend functionality).
We'll improve this later in this branch.
We allow deleting remote branches (or local and remote branches) only if *all*
selected branches have one.
We show the a warning about force-deleting as soon as at least one of the
selected branches is not fully merged.
The added test only tests a few of the most interesting cases; I didn't try to
cover the whole space of possible combinations, that would have been too much.
When creating a PR against a selected branch (via O = "create pull request
options"), the user will first be asked to select a remote (if there is more
than one). After that, the suggestion area is populated with all remote branches
at that origin - instead of all local ones. After all, creating a PR against a
branch that doesn't exist on the remote won't work.
Please note that for the "PR is not filed against 'origin' remote" use case
(e.g. when contributing via a fork that is 'origin' to a GitHub project that is
'upstream'), the opened URL will not be correct. This is not a regression and
will be fixed in an upcoming PR.
Fixes#1826.
When clicking in a single-file diff view to enter staging (or custom patch
editing, when coming from the commit files panel), and then pressing shift-down
or shift-up to select a range, it would move the selected line rather than
creating a range. Only on the next press would it start to select a range from
there.
This is very similar to the fix we made for pressing escape in 0e4d266a52.
When clicking in the main view to enter staging, and then pressing shift-down to
select a range, it moves the selection rather than selecting a two-line range.
We'll fix this in the next commit.
After pasting commits once, we hide the cherry-picking status (as if it had been
reset), and no longer paint the copied commits with blue hashes; however, we
still allow pasting them again. This can be useful e.g. to backport a bugfix to
multiple major version release branches.
Currently we try to delete a branch normally, and if git returns an error and
its output contains the text "branch -D", then we prompt the user to force
delete, and try again using -D. Besides just being ugly, this has the
disadvantage that git's logic to decide whether a branch is merged is not very
good; it only considers a branch merged if it is either reachable from the
current head, or from its own upstream. In many cases I want to delete a branch
that has been merged to master, but I don't have master checked out, so the
current branch is really irrelevant, and it should rather (or in addition) check
whether the branch is reachable from one of the main branches. The problem is
that git doesn't know what those are.
But lazygit does, so make the check on our side, prompt the user if necessary,
and always use -D. This is both cleaner, and works better.
See this mailing list discussion for more:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/bf6308ce-3914-4b85-a04b-4a9716bac538@haller-berlin.de/
It's maybe not very common, but it's totally possible for a remote branch to
have a different name than the local branch. This test shows that we don't
support this properly when deleting the remote branch.
