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.
We will need this because under some conditions we are going to use this
function to edit a range of commits, and we can't set merge commits to "edit".
This corresponds to the code in startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit which has similar
logic.
It is a bit unfortunate that we will have these two different ways of setting
todos to edit: startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit does it after stopping in the
rebase, in the Then function of its refresh, but InteractiveRebase does it in
the daemon with a ChangeTodoActionsInstruction. It still makes sense though,
given how InteractiveRebase works.
This not only affects "edit", but also "drop", "fixup", and "squash".
Previously, when trying to use these for a range selection that includes a merge
commit, they would fail with the cryptic error message "Some todos not found in
git-rebase-todo"; now they simply exclude the merge commit. I'm not sure if one
is better or worse than the other, and we should probably simply disable the
commands when a merge commit is selected, but that's out of scope in this PR.
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.
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.
As far as I understand, this was needed back when the staging context was still
responsible for rendering its highlight (as opposed to the gocui view, as it is
today). It was necessary to call it with isFocused=false so that it removed the
highlight. The isFocused bool is no longer used today (and we'll remove it in
the next commit), so there's no need to render the view here any more.
This fixes flickering when leaving the staging view by pressing escape. The
reason is that in this case the patch state was already set to nil by the time
we get here, so we would render an empty view for a brief moment.
On top of that, it fixes unwanted scrolling to the top when leaving the staging
view. The reason for this is that we have code in layout that scrolls views up
if needed, e.g. because the window got taller or the view content got shorter
(added in #3839). This kicked in because we emptied the view, and scrolled it
all the way to the top, which we don't want.
This way it won't scroll to the top; we want this when entering the staging
panel or the patch building panel by clicking into the view, and also when
returning from these views by pressing escape. Note that there's a bug in this
latter case: the focused panel still scrolls to the top when hitting escape, we
will fix this in the next commit.
Change it in the same way for NewRenderStringWithScrollTask, just for
consistency, although it's not really necessary there. We use this function only
for focusing the merge conflict view, and in that case we already have an empty
task key before and after, so it doesn't change anything there.
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.
So far we only had tests that called Click() only once. If you have a test that
calls Click twice (we'll add one in the next commit), you'll notice that the
second click is interpreted as a drag because the mouse button wasn't released
in between. Fix this by sending a "mouse-up" event after the click.
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.
The string literal "\uf0868" does *not* create a single rune with the code point
f0868, as was intended; instead, it creates two runes, one with the code point
f086, followed by the character '8'.
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.
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.
