The prompt offering to continue a rebase/merge is opened from a refresh
and then left to sit until the user acts on it. But the operation can
change out from under it: a coding agent (or the user in another
terminal) might continue or abort it, or advance it to a commit with new
conflicts. The prompt then becomes stale — pressing continue fails with
"no rebase in progress" or acts on the wrong state.
Track whether the prompt is showing, and on each refresh dismiss it if
the operation is no longer in the "resolved, ready to continue" state
that the prompt is offering to act on. This runs on the same refreshes
that would open it (including the background poll and the refresh on
window focus), so the prompt disappears on its own shortly after the
operation moves on.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When conflicts of an in-progress rebase/merge/cherry-pick/revert are
resolved, lazygit pops up a prompt offering to continue it. This is
helpful when you started the operation in lazygit and resolved the
conflicts in your editor. But it's confusing when the operation was
started outside lazygit — e.g. by a coding agent in another terminal
that resolves the conflicts but hasn't continued yet because it's still
running tests or fixing the build. lazygit would then prompt unbidden.
Track whether the in-progress operation was started from within lazygit,
and only show the prompt in that case. We record this right after running
a merge/rebase step (in CheckMergeOrRebaseWithRefreshOptions, the
subprocess branch of genericMergeCommand, and the custom-command
conflict path), and clear it whenever a refresh observes that no
operation is in progress — which also handles an operation that was
finished or aborted externally.
The conflict-resolution tests start their operation by running git
directly (not through lazygit's UI), so they call the new test helper
Common.PretendMergeOrRebaseStartedInLazygit to have lazygit treat the
operation as its own and still get the prompt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
`b` on a merge conflict is meant to keep both sides. With the diff3
conflict style git additionally renders the common ancestor between the
two sides, and the old ALL selection kept everything between the
outermost markers, dragging that ancestor into the resolved file.
Rename the selection from ALL to BOTH and restrict it to the top and
bottom hunks so the common base is dropped. Without the diff3 style
there is no ancestor section, so the behaviour there is unchanged.
The user-facing keybinding config was already named pickBothHunks; only
the internal enum, handler, translation and log string still said "all".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Pressing `b` on a conflict is meant to pick both sides. With the diff3
conflict style, git also renders the common ancestor between the two
sides, and `b` currently keeps that ancestor section too, which is
wrong: the common base is neither side of the merge and must not end up
in the resolved file.
This test captures the current (buggy) behaviour so the follow-up fix
has a clear before/after.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
For a non-textual conflict (e.g. DD/AU/UA/UD/DU), pressing space used to run the
normal stage path, which did something unclear: `git add` happens to resolve the
conflict by keeping the file, but that's neither obvious nor symmetric. Route a
single such file to the same Keep/Delete picker that enter opens, so space and
enter agree.
For a range selection that includes one of these conflicts, staging makes no
sense, so disable it with a toast that points the user at resolving them one at
a time. (Entering a range was already disabled with the standard toast.)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replace merge-tool with merge options menu that allows resolving all
conflicts for selected files as ours, theirs, or union, while still
providing access to the merge tool.
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.
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 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.
By constructing an arg vector manually, we no longer need to quote arguments
Mandate that args must be passed when building a command
Now you need to provide an args array when building a command.
There are a handful of places where we need to deal with a string,
such as with user-defined custom commands, and for those we now require
that at the callsite they use str.ToArgv to do that. I don't want
to provide a method out of the box for it because I want to discourage its
use.
For some reason we were invoking a command through a shell when amending a
commit, and I don't believe we needed to do that as there was nothing user-
supplied about the command. So I've switched to using a regular command out-
side the shell there
