When filtering for a file path we use the --follow option for "git log", so it
will follow renames of the file, which is great. However, if you then selected
one of the commits before a rename, you didn't see a diff, because we would pass
the original filter path to the "git show" call.
To fix this, call git log with the --name-status option when filtering by path,
so that each commit reports which file paths are touched in this commit;
remember these in the commit object, so that we can pass them to the "git show"
call later.
Be careful not to store too many such paths unnecessarily. When filtering by
folder rather than file, all these paths will necessarily be inside the original
filter path, so detect this and don't store them in this case.
There is some unfortunate code duplication between loading commits and loading
reflog commits, which I am too lazy to clean up right now.
The test shows that selecting a commit before the rename shows an empty diff,
and selecting the rename itself shows an added file rather than a rename.
This broke with the introduction of the age in the stashes list in bc330b8ff3
(which was included in 0.41, so 12 minor versions ago).
This makes it work again when filtering by file, but it still doesn't work when
filtering by folder (and never has). We'll fix that next.
The test shows that it doesn't work, the list is empty both when filtering by
file and by folder.
I could have added test cases for these to the unit tests in
stash_loader_test.go instead, but I don't find tests that need to mock git's
output very valuable, so I opted for an integration test even though it takes
much longer to run.
Similar to what was done in 457cdce61d, and for the same reason.
However, instead of waiting and fixing them one by one as we see them fail, I
decided to go about it more systematically. To do that, I added calls to
`time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)` in all the Shell.Commit* helper functions; this
ensures that all the commits we make get different committer time stamps, making
all these tests fail. With this I'm pretty confident that we're good now.
When entering filtering we would only call FocusLine, which takes care of
highlighting the selected line in the commits list, but not of re-rendering the
main view. HandleFocus does that.
When exiting filtering, the HandleFocus call was missing entirely.
The tests needed to be reworked a little bit to make this testable.
Now that -committerdate is the default sort order, we could get different
results for the sort order of the branches list depending on whether the commits
on both branches have the same committer time stamp (likely in an integration
test, since git time stamps have second resolution), in which case git will fall
back to alphabetical order, or not (rare, but possible), in which case master
will have the newer commit and will come first. Make this stable by forcing the
sort order to alphabetical.
We might have more tests with this problem, we'll just have to fix them one by
one as we see them fail.
At the same time, we change the defaults for both of them to "date" (they were
"recency" and "alphabetical", respectively, before). This is the reason we need
to touch so many integration tests. For some of them I decided to adapt the test
assertions to the changed sort order; for others, I added a SetupConfig step to
set the order back to "recency" so that I don't have to change what the test
does (e.g. how many SelectNextItem() calls are needed to get to a certain
branch).
While it's true that the behavior is a little different from the staging panel,
where the staged lines are actually removed from the view and in many cases the
selection stays more or less in the same place, it is still very useful to move
to the next stageable thing in the custom patch building view too.
CheckMergeOrRebase calls Refresh already. However, it does an async refresh by
default, so we must turn this into a sync refresh so that moving the selection
down by one works even for the very first commit in history. Also, we must add
an explicit call to FocusLine so that the view selection is in sync with the
model selection; previously this was taken care of by the PostRefreshUpdate call
that happens as part of a refresh.
Keep the same commit selected, by moving the selection down by the number of
cherry-picked commits. We also do this when reverting commits, and it is
possible now that we use a sync waiting status.
We also need to turn the refresh that happens as part of CheckMergeOrRebase into
a sync one, so that the commits list is up to date and the new selection isn't
clamped.
We are about to change the selection behavior when cherry-picking, and it's good
to have tests that document in what way it changes in the next commit.
Unlike moving a patch to the index, applying or reverting a patch didn't
auto-stash, which means that applying a patch when there's a modified (but
unstaged) file in the working tree would error out with the message "error:
file1: does not match index", regardless of whether those modifications conflict
with the patch or not.
To fix this, we *could* add auto-stashing like we do for the "move patch to
index" command. However, in this case we rather simply stage the affected files
(after asking for confirmation). This has a few advantages:
- it only changes the staging state of those files that are contained in the
patch (whereas auto-stashing always changes all files to unstaged)
- it doesn't unnecessarily show a confirmation if none of the modified files are
affected by the patch
- if the patch conflicts with the modified files, the conflicts were "backwards"
("ours" was the patch, "theirs" the modified file); it is more logical if "ours"
is the current state of the file, and "theirs" is the patch.
It's a little unfortunate that the behavior isn't exactly the same as for "move
patch to index", but for that one we do need the auto-stash because of the
rebase that runs behind the scenes.
The tests show that this currently fails with the confusing error message "does
not match index", regardless of whether the patch conflicts with the
modifications or not. We'll improve this in the next commit.
I don't bother adding tests for reverting a patch, as the code is basically the
same as for apply.
This is functionality that works already, we only add the test for more complete
test coverage. However, there's a detail problem, and the test demonstrates
this: we keep the stash even if there was no conflict. We'll fix this next.
The function would return "head/branchname" when there was either a tag or a
remote with the same name.
While fixing this we slightly change the semantic of the function (and of
determineCheckedOutBranchName, which calls it): for a detached head it now
returns an empty string rather than the commit hash. I actually think this is
better.
The icon will appear when there's a tag with the same name as the current branch
(that's what we're testing here), or even when there's a remote with the same
name. I'm not adding a test for this latter case, but this was actually how I
discovered the issue.
Pretty basic fix, didn't seem to have any complications.
I only added the refs/ prefix to the FullRefName() method
to align with other similar methods, and to make this change
not impact any user facing modals.
Fixes: https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/issues/4634
Also adds a test demonstrating that the stash show behavior is now fixed
Adaptions are for this gocui commit:
Cleanup: remove Is* error functions
- Use errors.Is instead of quality comparisons. This is better because it
matches wrapped errors as well, which we will need later in this branch.
- Inline the errors.Is calls at the call sites. This is idiomatic go, we don't
need helper functions for this.
See https://go.dev/blog/go1.13-errors for more about this.
This now allows for leaving the status panel and returning back to the
same log command. Previously any return to the status panel would result
in the next command in the list being shown. Now, you need to press `a`,
with a log command being rendered, to rotate to the next
allBranchesLogCmd.
BeginInteractiveRebaseForCommit is used for all the patch commands, and for
rewording. It works by setting the commit we want to stop at to 'edit'; this
doesn't work for merge commits. This wasn't a problem for the patch commands so
far, because you typically don't use custom patches with merge commits (although
we don't prevent this; maybe we should?).
However, it was a problem when you tried to reword a merge commit; this
previously failed with an error, as the test added in the previous commit
demonstrated.
Also, we want to add a new patch command that has to stop *before* the selected
commit (pull patch to new commit before the original one), and this wouldn't
work for the first commit in a feature branch, because it would have to set the
last commit before that to 'edit', which isn't possible if that's a merge (which
is likely).
To fix all this, use a 'break' before the selected commit if the commit is a
merge. It is important that we only do it in that case and not always, otherwise
we would break the new regression tests that were added a few commits ago.
I almost broke this during the development of this branch, so add a test to
guard against that. The point here is that the stack remains intact, i.e. the
newly created commit is the last commit of the lower branch, and thus shows the
"*".
I almost broke this during the development of this branch, so add a test to
guard against that. The point here is that the stack remains intact, i.e. the
renamed commit is the head of the lower branch, and thus shows the "*".
This is very old; I can only guess that this was added at a time where today's
list column handling wasn't in place yet, so the space was needed to separate
columns. This now causes a gap of two spaces between the rebase todo column and
the author column, which I'm sure wasn't intended. Funny that I never noticed.
Previously we would render the diff for a directory to the main/secondary pair,
but a diff for a file to the staging/stagingSecondary pair. (And similar for
commit files: main/secondary for directories, but
patchBuilding/patchBuildingSecondary for files.)
I always found this confusing and couldn't really understand why we are doing
this; but now it gets in my way because I want to attach a controller to
main/secondary so that they can be focused. So change it to always use the main
context pair for everything we render from a side panel.
When rerendering a view at the end of a refresh, we call HandleFocus only if the
view has the focus. This is so that we rerender the main view for the new
selection.
What was missing here is to update the view selection from the list selection if
the view doesn't have the focus, so that the selection is painted properly.
Normally this is not relevant because you don't see the selection if another
side panel has the focus; however, you do see it as an inactive selection when
e.g. a popup is shown, in which case it does matter.
This will become more important when we introduce section headers for commits,
because in that case the view selection needs to change when the working copy
state changes from normal to rebasing or vice versa, even if the list selection
stays the same.
The changed test submodule/reset.go shows how this was wrong before: when
entering the submodule again after resetting, there is a refresh which keeps the
same branch selected as before (master); however, since the branches panel is
not focused, the view didn't notice and kept thinking that the detached head is
selected (which it isn't, you can tell by running the test in sandbox mode and
focusing the branches panel at the end: you'll see that master is selected). So
the change in this commit fixes that.
We do this because
- it's closer to what you would do on the command line
- it simplifies the code a bit
- it will allow us to support cherry-picking merge commits.
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.
When debugging an integration test that involves some behind-the-scenes
rebasing, the daemon lazygit would also wait for a debugger to attach. This is
very confusing because the test seems to hang; once you figured out what's going
on, it's inconvenient because you need to attach a debugger to the daemon every
time you debug the test.
Now, it would sometimes be useful to be able to debug the daemon itself (whether
inside an integration test, or during normal usage), and I have often wished to
be able to do that. We might introduce an additional env var (and command-line
option?) to enable this; but that's out of scope here.
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.
Original commit message of the gocui change:
This fixes View.Size, Width and Height to be the correct (outer) size of a view
including its frame, and InnerSize/InnerWidth/InnerHeight to be the usable
client area exluding the frame. Previously, Size was actually the InnerSize (and
a lot of client code used it as such, so these need to be changed to InnerSize).
InnerSize, on the other hand, was *one* less than Size (not two, as you would
have expected), and in many cases this was made up for at call sites by adding 1
(e.g. in calcRealScrollbarStartEnd, parseInput, and many other places in the
lazygit code).
There are still some weird things left that I didn't address here:
- a view's lower-right coordinates (x1/y1) are one less than you would expect.
For example, a view with a 2x2 client area like this:
╭──╮
│ab│
│cd│
╰──╯
in the top-left corner of the screen (x0 and y0 both zero) has x1/xy at 3, not
4 as would be more natural.
- a view without a frame has its coordinates extended by 1 on all sides; to
illustrate, the same 2x2 view as before but without a frame, sitting in the
top-left corder of the screen, has coordinates x0=-1, y0=-1, x1=2, y1=2. This
is highly confusing and unexpected.
I left these as they are because they would be even more of a breaking change,
and also because they don't have quite as much of an impact on general app code.
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.
Any newly loaded custom command coming from the per-repo config file should add
to the global ones (or override an existing one in the global one), rather than
replace all global ones.
We can achieve this by simply prepending the newly loaded commands to the
existing ones. We don't have to take care of removing duplicate key assignments;
it is already possible to add two custom commands with the same key to the
global config file, the first one wins.
If a `t.FileSystem().FileContent("file.txt", Equals("bla"))` assertion fails
because the file doesn't exist, the error would say
Expected path 'file.txt' to not exist, but it does
which is very confusing.
SelectedCommit is context-dependent and points to SelectedLocalCommit,
SelectedReflogCommit, or SelectedSubCommit depending on which panel is active.
If none of these panels is active, it returns the selected local commit, which
is probably the most useful default (e.g. when defining custom commands for the
Files panel).
The folder custom_commands contained tests for both custom commands (the ones
you configure in config.yml) and shell commands (the ones you execute at the ":"
prompt). I always found this confusing, so separate these into two different
folders.
- Introduced a new optional user config command, allBranchesLogCmds
- When pressing 'a' in the Status view, cycle between non-empty, non-identical log commands
- There will always be at least one command to run, since allBranhesLogCmd has a default
- Update documentation & write an integration test
- Update translation string
The current behaviour when creating a new branch off of a remote branch
is to always track the branch it was created from.
For example, if a branch 'my_branch' is created off of the remote branch
'fix_crash_13', then 'my_branch' will be tracking the remote
'fix_crash_13' branch.
It is common practice to have both the local and remote branches named
the same when the local is tracking the remote one. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that 'my_branch' should not track the remote
'fix_crash_13' branch.
The new behaviour when creating a new branch off of a remote branch is
to track the branch it was created from only if the branch names match.
If the branch names DO NOT match then the newly created branch will not
track the remote branch it was created from.
For example, if a user creates a new branch 'fix_crash_13' off of the
remote branch 'fix_crash_13', then the local 'fix_crash_13' branch will
track the remote 'fix_crash_13' branch.
However, if the user creates a new branch called 'other_branch_name' off
of the remote branch 'fix_crash_13', then the local 'other_branch_name'
branch will NOT track the remote 'fix_crash_13' branch.
Several custom patch commands on parts of an added file would fail with the
confusing error message "error: new file XXX depends on old contents". These
were dropping the custom patch from the original commit, moving the patch to a
new commit, moving it to a later commit, or moving it to the index.
We fix this by converting the patch header from an added file to a diff against
an empty file. We do this not just for the purpose of applying the patch, but
also for rendering it and copying it to the clip board. I'm not sure it matters
much in these cases, but it does feel more correct for a filtered patch to be
presented this way.
This currently works (albeit with a bit of manual work, as the user needs to
resolve conflicts), and we add this test just to make sure that we don't break
it with the following change.
This currently works, we add it as a regression test to make sure we don't break
it. It is an interesting test because it turns the deletion of the file in the
moved-from commit into a modification.
When switching to a repo that was open before, the context tree is reused, so
before adding keybinding functions to those contexts again, we need to clear the
old ones.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to delete them. This would often be useful, but
our todo rewriting mechanisms rely on being able to find todos by some
identifier (hash for pick, ref for update-ref), and exec todos don't have a
unique identifier.
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.
It has two modified hunks, one for a master commit and one for a branch commit.
Currently we get an error mentioning those two commits, but we would like to
silently select the branch commit.
Put it into the individual menu items instead.
Again, this is necessary because we are going to add another entry to the menu
that is independent of the selected branch.
Previously the entire status was colored in a single color, so the API made
sense. This is going to change in the next commit, so now we must include the
color in the string returned from BranchStatus(), which means that callers who
need to do hit detection or measure the length need to decolorize it.
While we're at it, switch the order of ↑3↓7 to ↓7↑3. For some reason that I
can't really explain I find it more logical this way. The software out there is
pretty undecided about it, it seems: VS Code puts ↓7 first, and so does the
shell prompt that comes with git; git status and git branch -v put "ahead" first
though. Shrug.
Use Equals instead of Contains for asserting the status view content. This
solves the problem that we might assert Contains("↓2 repo"), but what it really
shows is "↑1↓2 repo", and the test still succeeds. At best this is confusing.
Also, this way we don't have to use the awkward DoesNotContain to check that it
really doesn't show a checkmark.
To do this, we need to fix two whitespace problems:
- there was always a space at the end for no reason. Simply remove it. It was
added in efb51eee96, but from looking at that diff it seems it was added
accidentally.
- there was a space at the beginning if the branch status was empty. This is
actually a cosmetic problem, for branches without a status the text was
indented by once space. Change this so that the space is added conditionally.
It's a bit awkward that we have to use Decolorise here, but this will go away
again later in this branch.
It can optionally be used to set the title of the panel that shows the output of
a command (when showOutput is true). If left unset, the command string is used
as the title.
To determine whether we need to ask for force pushing, we need to query the push
branch rather than the upstream branch, in case they are not the same.
Our code doesn't realize that we need to prompt the user to force push, when the
branch is up-to-date with its upstream but not with the branch that we're
pushing to.
It is unexpected that a function called PushBranch also sets the upstream
branch; also, we want to add a PushBranch function in the next commit that
doesn't.
In go 1.22, loop variables are redeclared with each iteration of the
loop, rather than simple updated on each iteration. This means that we
no longer need to manually redeclare variables when they're closed over
by a function.
For custom commands it is useful to select an earlier command and have it copied
to the prompt for further editing. This can be done by hitting 'e' now.
For other types of suggestion panels we don't enable this behavior, as you can't
create arbitrary new items there that don't already exist as a suggestion.
In the custom commands panel you can now tab to the suggestions and hit 'd' to
delete items from there. Useful if you mistyped a command and don't want it to
appear in your history any more.
The rebase.updateRefs feature of git is very useful to rebase a stack of
branches and keep everything nicely stacked; however, it is usually in the way
when you make a copy of a branch and want to rebase it "away" from the original
branch in some way or other. For example, the original branch might sit on main,
and you want to rebase the copy onto devel to see if things still compile there.
Or you want to do some heavy history rewriting experiments on the copy, but keep
the original branch in case the experiments fail. Or you want to split a branch
in two because it contains two unrelated sets of changes; so you make a copy,
and drop half of the commits from the copy, then check out the original branch
and drop the other half of the commits from it.
In all these cases, git's updateRefs feature insists on moving the original
branch along with the copy in the first rebase that you make on the copy. I
think this is a bug in git, it should create update-ref todos only for branches
that point into the middle of your branch (because only then do they form a
stack), not when they point at the head (because then it's a copy). I had a long
discussion about this on the git mailing list [1], but people either don't agree
or don't care enough.
So we fix this on our side: whenever we start a rebase for whatever reason, be
it interactive, non-interactive, or behind-the-scenes, we drop any update-ref
todos that are at the very top of the todo list, which fixes all the
above-mentioned scenarios nicely.
I will admit that there's one scenario where git's behavior is the desired one,
and the fix in this PR makes it worse: when you create a new branch off of an
existing one, with the intention of creating a stack of branches, but before you
make the first commit on the new branch you realize some problem with the first
branch (e.g. a commit that needs to be reworded or dropped). It this case you do
want both branches to be affected by the change. In my experience this scenario
is much rarer than the other ones that I described above, and it's also much
easier to recover from: just check out the other branch again and hard-reset it
to the rebased one.
[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/354f9fed-567f-42c8-9da9-148a5e223022@haller-berlin.de/
We upgraded our minimum Go version to 1.21 in commit
57ac9c2189. We can now replace our
`utils.Min` and `utils.Max` functions with the built-in `min` and `max`.
Reference: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Min_and_max
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
Using the "Add to .git/info/exclude" in a worktree results in an error message,
as the test shows. The same would happen in a submodule, but I'm not adding an
extra test for that, as the circumstances are the same.
When exiting filtering mode, we currently keep the selection index the same in
the commits panel. This doesn't make sense at all, since the index in the
filtered view has no relation to the index in the unfiltered view.
I often use filtering mode (either by path or by author) to find a given commit
faster than I would otherwise be able to. When exiting filtering mode, it's
useful to keep the same commit selected, so that I can look at the surrounding
commits, see which branch it was a part of, etc. So reselect the commit again
after exiting filtering mode.
Sometimes this is not possible, most likely when the commit is so long ago that
it's outside of the initial 300 range. In that case, at least select the commit
again that was selected before I entered filtering; this is still better than
arbitrarily keeping the same selection index.
It would crash when some keybindings are set to null, and the filter string is
such that only those keybindings remain visible.
The reason for the crash is that when inserting non-model items (menu section
headers in this case) you specify a column to align them to. This works on the
assumption that the number of columns is always the same. It can cope with the
case that columns are removed because they are empty for all items; but it can't
cope with the case that the getDisplayStrings function returns a lower number of
columns.
And this is what happened here: MenuViewModel.GetDisplayStrings would omit the
keybinding column when none of the entries have a keybinding. This logic is
unnecessary, the generic list rendering mechanism takes care of this, so
removing this logic fixes the crash.
We do have to make sure though that the column is really empty when there's no
keybinding, so change the logic to use FgCyan only when there's a keybinding.
It is a bad idea to read a git-rebase-todo file, remove some update-ref todos,
and write it back out behind git's back. This will cause git to actually remove
the branches referenced by those update-ref todos when the rebase is continued.
The reason is that git remembers the refs affected by update-ref todos at the
beginning of the rebase, and remembers information about them in the file
.git/rebase-merge/update-refs. Then, whenever the user performs a "git rebase
--edit-todo" command, it updates that file based on whether update-ref todos
were added or removed by that edit. If we rewrite the git-rebase-todo file
behind git's back, this updating doesn't happen.
Fix this by not updating the git-rebase-todo file directly in this case, but
performing a "git rebase --edit-todo" command where we set ourselves as the
editor and change the file in there. This makes git update the bookkeeping
information properly.
Ideally we would use this method for all cases where we change the
git-rebase-todo file (e.g. moving todos up/down, or changing the type of a
todo); this would be cleaner because we wouldn't mess with git's private
implementation details. I tried this, but unfortunately it isn't fast enough.
Right now, moving a todo up or down takes between 1 and 2ms on my machine;
changing it to do a "git rebase --edit-todo" slows it down to over 100ms, which
is unacceptable.
In the test we simply removed the update-ref todo but didn't make any other
changes to the todos. This should really have kept everything the way it was,
including the other branch head. The fact that the star was gone was really
because of the bug that we are going to fix later in the branch.
Change the test so that it also makes a change before the update-ref todo; this
way we test that the star is gone because we deleted the update-ref, not because
of the bug.
To guard against the bug, we add another assertion for the branches view to test
that both branches are still there. This currently fails.
