I'm not a skilled UI designer, so I suspect there may be even better
options, but it's definitely already better than the raw ASCII "---" we
had before.
Put the line only at the beginning because it looks bad if the line
after the label is misaligned when labels don't have the same width
(e.g. "Remote" vs. "Local" in the divergence view).
Some tests assert that a specific commit subject does or doesn't occur
in the main view; interactive_rebase/outside_rebase_range_select.go is
an example for this, it asserts `t.Views().Main().Content(
DoesNotContain("commit 06"))`. The problem with this kind of assertion
and our test commit naming scheme is that the diff view begins with a
"commit <hash>" line, and when that hash happens to start with "06" the
assertion matched it and failed spuriously. This was usually masked by
our MaxAttempts=2 that we currently use for integration tests (it's
quite unlikely that the commit gets a hash beginning with "06" twice in
a row). However, we want to get to a state where we can set MaxAttempts
to 1, so make this more robust by changing our naming scheme.
The commit graph used '⏣' (U+23E3 BENZENE RING WITH CIRCLE) for merge
commits and '◯' (U+25EF LARGE CIRCLE) for regular commits. Both have
very poor coverage in popular monospace fonts:
- '⏣' lives in the Misc Technical block and is essentially absent from
every common monospace font (Source Code Pro, JetBrains Mono, Fira
Code, Cascadia Code, Hack, Iosevka, Menlo, Consolas, Monaco, IBM
Plex Mono, Ubuntu Mono, Noto Sans Mono, Inconsolata). It is always
drawn from a system fallback font.
- '◯' is the late-addition LARGE CIRCLE codepoint. It is present in
some fonts (Cascadia, Fira Code, Hack, Iosevka, Menlo, Noto Sans
Mono) but missing from many others, including Source Code Pro and
most Nerd Font derivatives based on it.
This is why the graph renders inconsistently across platforms even
when the same monospace font is configured: each OS picks a different
fallback font (Apple Symbols on macOS, Segoe UI Symbol on Windows,
Noto/DejaVu/Symbola on Linux), and the substituted glyphs differ in
shape, weight, and advance width. '◯' is also East Asian Ambiguous
width, so some terminals render it wider than one cell, exaggerating
the misalignment.
Replace the symbols with codepoints from the foundational 1991
Geometric Shapes block, which has far broader font coverage:
- Merge: '◎' U+25CE BULLSEYE -- concentric circles, the visually
closest cousin to the previous benzene-ring glyph.
- Commit: '○' U+25CB WHITE CIRCLE -- the same hollow-circle silhouette
as before, just a more universally available codepoint.
The new symbols are present in the font directly in significantly
more cases; and when fallback is still required, they are universally
well-drawn (unlike '⏣', which many fallback fonts also lack).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When you rebase a branch and there are conflicts, lazygit asks you to continue
the rebase when it detects that all conflicts have been resolved. However, it is
common to make additional changes beyond just fixing the conflicts (e.g. to fix
build failures), and when doing that while the "Continue the rebase?" prompt is
showing, lazygit detects that too and asks you if you want to stage those newly
modified files too. This is all well and good (and can be disabled for those who
don't like it); however, lazygit would treat out-of-date submodules as unstaged
changes and would offer to stage those as well, and this is pretty bad and
almost never what you want. Fix this by excluding submodules from that second
check.
This will put whatever git's default merge variant is as the first menu item,
and add a second item which is the opposite (no-ff if the default is ff, and
vice versa).
If users prefer to always have the same option first no matter whether it's
applicable, they can make ff always appear first by setting git's "merge.ff"
config to "true" or "only", or by setting lazygit's "git.merging.args" config to
"--ff" or "--ff-only"; if they want no-ff to appear first, they can do that by
setting git's "merge.ff" config to "false", or by setting lazygit's
"git.merging.args" config to "--no-ff". Which of these they choose depends on
whether they want the config to also apply to other git clients including the
cli, or only to lazygit.
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).
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.
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\"" }}/'
```
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
