Lazygit has two ways to decide whether it needs to ask the user to
force-push:
1. if it knows ahead of time that the push will fail because the branch
has diverged, by looking at the incoming/outgoing information that it
shows as ↑3↓7.
2. by examining the error that comes back when the push has failed.
The second situation should happen only rarely, because lazygit fetches
every minute by default, so the ↑3↓7 information is usually up to date.
It might not be if the user turned off auto-fetch (or increased the
auto-fetch interval). However, in this case it's almost always harmful
to prompt the user to force-push, because we know that the reason for
diverging is that something was pushed to the remote, and we would wipe
it out by force-pushing. In such a situation, the more likely user
action is to pull the remote changes and then push normally again.
So just remove the second prompt, and replace it by a better error
message when we detect that updates were rejected remotely.
A little bit of history archeology reveals that the second prompt was
added at a time where we didn't have the first one yet, so at that time
it made sense to have it; but when the first prompt was added, we should
have removed the second.
Lazygit has two ways to decide whether it needs to ask the user to force-push:
1. if it knows ahead of time that the push will fail because the branch has
diverged, by looking at the incoming/outgoing information that it shows as ↑3↓7.
2. by examining the error that comes back when the push has failed.
The second situation should happen only rarely, because lazygit fetches every
minute by default, so the ↑3↓7 information is usually up to date. It might not
be if the user turned off auto-fetch (or increased the auto-fetch interval).
However, in this case it's almost always harmful to prompt the user to
force-push, because we know that the reason for diverging is that something was
pushed to the remote, and we would wipe it out by force-pushing. In such a
situation, the more likely user action is to pull the remote changes and then
push normally again.
So just remove the second prompt, and replace it by a better error message when
we detect that updates were rejected remotely.
A little bit of history archeology reveals that the second prompt was added at a
time where we didn't have the first one yet, so at that time it made sense to
have it; but when the first prompt was added, we should have removed the second.
- **PR Description**
Previously it wasn't possible to move an update-ref entry up or down
using ctrl-j and ctrl-k, or to delete an update-ref entry. For moving, a
work-around was to move the surrounding commits instead, but it's still
nice to be able to do it directly. Deleting is very much necessary
though, since there are situations where git adds the update-ref entries
but they are not wanted; one example is if you want to make a copy of a
branch and rebase to a different place, without the original branch
following it. (There's a long discussion about this
[here](https://public-inbox.org/git/adb7f680-5bfa-6fa5-6d8a-61323fee7f53@haller-berlin.de/).)
Update-ref todos can't be set to "drop" like other todos, because they
have no sha associated with them, so we need to delete them immediately.
We show a confirmation before doing that, because you'd have to abort
the rebase if you do it accidentally.
We allow range selecting normal todos and update-ref todos at the same
time; in that case, we delete all the update-ref todos and set all the
other ones to "drop". Not that this is an absolutely necessary feature,
but it wasn't hard to do.
So far, the only situation where we called SetSelectionRangeAndMode was one
where the range could only get larger (in startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit, in
which case update-ref todos can be inserted by the rebase). However, in the last
commit we introduced a new call site where the range can get smaller, including
being reduced to a single item. Since this is indistinguishable from a single
selection, set the mode to none in this case; without this, hitting escape would
seemingly do nothing because it collapses the empty range selection.
- **PR Description**
Remember which version of lazygit the user was last running, and show a
list of breaking changes since that version (if any) if the user
upgraded to a newer version.
It's a little unobvious how to test this manually, because we don't show
the popup for developer builds. You'll have to build with something like
`go build -ldflags="-X 'main.version=0.41.0'"` in order to test it.
This is an extremely stripped down version of #3261.
- Adds Co-Author support to commit menu (`<C-o>` by default)
- `e` Opens up the commit message in your editor
- `c` Lets you add a co author to your commit
- Cleans up and amend commit attribute menu related code
- **PR Description**
Add new config settings `git.commit.autoWrapCommitMessage` (default
true) and `git.commit.autoWrapWidth` (default 72), which allow automatic
as-you-type wrapping of the commit message body to the specified width.
There are occasional situations where this wrapping is in the way, for
example when you need to have longer lines in the message for some
reason (perhaps because you have a very wide ASCII art picture or
table), and you'll have to resort to switching to the editor in that
case. However, in my experience these cases are quite rare.
... and when recalling a commit message from an old commit by pressing up-arrow.
This is necessary because committing turns our soft line breaks into real ones,
but when rewording we want to turn them back into soft ones again, so that it's
possible to insert words at the beginning of a paragraph and have everything
rewrap nicely.
This is only a best effort; the algorithm only removes those hard line breaks
that can be removed without changing the way the message looks. This works well
when the previous commit message was wrapped at the same width, which for most
users should be the most common case; but if it wasn't, the result is not great.
Specifically, if the old wrap width was smaller, some hard line breaks just
won't be removed; if it was wider though, you'll get an unpleasant comb effect
with alternating long and short lines. In such a case it's best to switch to the
editor and use whatever wrapping features you have there (e.g. alt-Q).
I have seen some commit messages that contain CRLF instead of just LF; I'm not
sure if these were created by a broken git client, but they exist, so we need to
deal with them. Editing them when rewording a commit sort of works, but is a
little strange; the \r characters are invisble, so you need an extra arrow key
press to skip over them.
In the next commit we are going to add more logic related to line breaks, and it
is getting confused by the \r, so it is becoming more important to fix this. The
easiest fix is to normalize the line endings right after loading.
- **PR Description**
Keep the same commit selected after squashing fixup commits, and after
creating fixup commits.
Edge case: it is now possible to have a range of commits selected when
squashing fixups (by using the "in current branch" version of the
command), and in that case we don't bother preserving the range. It
would be possible, but would require more code, and I don't think it's
worth it, so I'm simply collapsing the range in that case.
This should arguably have been done in b133318b40 already; it's becoming more
important now because we're going to extend the common code with more logic in
the next commit.
We have such a test already (squash_fixups_above_first_commit.go), but it can't
be used for what we want to check here, because it uses the first commit, and we
can't move down from there. So create a new one that basically does the same
thing, but for a commit in the middle. The focus of this new test is to check
how the selection behaves; as you can see, there is a problem both when creating
a fixup and when squashing fixups. We'll address these separately in the next
commits.
- **PR Description**
It is now possible to select a range of commits (while not in a rebase),
and hit "e" to edit them all. This starts a rebase on the bottom-most
commit of the range, and sets all the selected commits to "edit"
(skipping merge commits, because they can't be edited).
It starts a rebase on the bottom-most commit of the range, and sets all the
selected commits to "edit" (skipping merge commits, because they can't be
edited).
In most real-world scenarios, name and path are usually the same. They don't
have to be though, and it's important to make sure we use the right one when
passing arguments to git commands, so change the tests to have different name
and path.
When doing a non-interactive rebase using a version of git earlier than
2.26, or by explicitly calling `git -c rebase.backend=apply rebase`,
lazygit can display the pending todos by parsing the numbered patch
files in `.git/rebase-apply/`. Unfortunately, support for this has been
broken for more than three years because of the change in 682db77401e
(the string literal "normal" should have been changed to
REBASE_MODE_NORMAL instead of REBASE_MODE_MERGING).
It's not an important bug since you can only get into this situation by
doing a rebase outside of lazygit, and then only with a pretty old git
version or by using very uncommon git options. So instead of fixing the
bug, just remove the code.
