- **PR Description**
Add property `outputTitle` to CustomCommand. 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.
Closes#3576.
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.
It used to be a common thing to have to update `Config.md` in a PR (and
we often forgot despite the template). As of #3565 this is no longer
necessary, so remove this from the template.
Updating docs in general is still a good thing to think about, so we
leave this in.
It used to be a common thing to have to update Config.md in a PR (and we often
forgot despite the template). As of #3565 this is no longer necessary, so remove
this from the template.
Updating docs in general is still a good thing to think about, so we leave this
in.
- **PR Description**
Some people push to a different branch (or even remote) than they pull
from. One example is described in #3437. Our logic of when to request a
force push is not appropriate for these workflows: we check the
configured upstream branch for divergence, but that's the one you pull
from. We should instead check the push-to branch for divergence.
Fixes#3437.
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.
In a triangular workflow the branch that you're pulling from is not the same as
the one that you are pushing to. For example, some people find it useful to set
the upstream branch to origin/master so that pulling effectively rebases onto
master, and set the push.default git config to "current" so that "feature"
pushes to origin/feature.
Another example is a fork-based workflow where "feature" has upstream set to
upstream/main, and the repo has remote.pushDefault set to "origin", so pushing
on "feature" pushes to origin/feature.
This commit adds new fields to models.Branch that store the ahead/behind
information against the push branch; for the "normal" workflow where you pull
and push from/to the upstream branch, AheadForPush/BehindForPush will be the
same as AheadForPull/BehindForPull.
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.
This guards against accidentally renaming a model field and thereby breaking
user's custom commands. With this change we'll get a build failure when we do
that.
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.
- **PR Description**
Allow deleting and editing custom command history items. Deleting is
done by hitting `d` on a suggestion; editing is done by hitting `e`,
which fills the selected item into the command prompt for further
editing.
Closes#2528.
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.
- If _not_ inside a neovim session, treat as
a normal nvim session and suspend lazygit.
- If inside a neovim session:
- Do not try to suspend lazygit.
- Send `q` keystroke to neovim session to quit lazygit.
- Send filename/line/etc. to neovim session.
- **PR Description**
Codacy's coverage report feature requires the use of a secret key, which
is only available on the main repo and is not available on forks. So,
the step has been always failing on any forks. This commit ensures that
we only run it on non-forks.
This greatly diminishes the value of the coverage reports. I've talked
to one of the Codacy people and advised that they should just have an
API key for coverage reports which is not a secret, like what bugsnag
does.
I've disabled the gate in codacy meaning if the coverage ever drops
beneath some percentage, the job won't fail. It wouldn't make sense to
fail the job if some other PR from a fork was responsible for reducing
the coverage percentage beneath some threshold.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [ ] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [ ] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [ ] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [ ] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [ ] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
<!--
Be sure to name your PR with an imperative e.g. 'Add worktrees view'
see https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/releases/tag/v0.40.0 for
examples
-->
Codacy's coverage report feature requires the use of a secret key, which
is only available on the main repo and is not available on forks. So,
the step has been always failing on any forks. This commit ensures that
we only run it on non-forks.
This greatly diminishes the value of the coverage reports. I've talked
to one of the Codacy people and advised that they should just have an
API key for coverage reports which is not a secret, like what bugsnag
does.
- **PR Description**
This PR fixes a problem with lazygit locking up completely when there's
a commit whose subject line is longer than approximately 65500
characters.
Fixes#3529.
We are going to truncate overly long lines returned from git log, and the most
likely field that is going to make the line too long is the subject; so we must
put it last, otherwise we'd end up with not enough fields to split when it's too
long.
It might not be obvious from the diff what's happening to the mock command
output in the test: it didn't have the divergence field (">") at all, which was
kind of a bug. It didn't matter for these tests though, because we are not
testing the divergence here, and our production code happens to be resilient
against it missing. But now we must add the ">" field before the subject.
Scanners can return errors (e.g. ErrTooLong), and if we don't handle it, the
cmd.Wait() call below will block forever because nobody drains the command's
output.
This happens for CommitLoader.GetCommits when there's a commit whose subject
line is longer than approx. 65500 characters; in that case, lazygit would lock
up completely. With this fix it remains usable, but the commit list is truncated
before the bad commit, which is not good enough. We'll improve that in the
remaining commits of this branch.
- **PR Description**
Clicking in the status side panel should activate it; also, clicking on
the repo name should bring up the recent repositories menu, and clicking
on the "(rebasing)" text should bring up the rebase options menu. All of
this was broken for a long time, since somewhere around the big
refactoring of March 2023. (The exact commit where it broke is hard to
bisect, since many of the commits in that area either don't compile or
crash at startup...)
I'm fixing this not because I think it's super important functionality
(nobody seems to have missed it for over a year), but because I have to
touch this code in another PR, and noticed that it wasn't working.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [ ] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
