Sometimes it takes a while to get PRs accepted upstream, and this blocks our
progress. Since I'm pretty much the only one making changes there anyway, it
makes sense to point to my fork directly.
This lets us get rid of a few more calls to Error(), and it simplifies things
for clients of OnWorker: they can simply return an error from their callback
like we do everywhere else.
We upgraded our minimum Go version to 1.21 in commit
57ac9c2189458a7f0e63c2e9cac8334694a3d545. We can now replace our
`utils.Min` and `utils.Max` functions with the built-in `min` and `max`.
Reference: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Min_and_max
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
When exiting filtering mode, we currently keep the selection index the same in
the commits panel. This doesn't make sense at all, since the index in the
filtered view has no relation to the index in the unfiltered view.
I often use filtering mode (either by path or by author) to find a given commit
faster than I would otherwise be able to. When exiting filtering mode, it's
useful to keep the same commit selected, so that I can look at the surrounding
commits, see which branch it was a part of, etc. So reselect the commit again
after exiting filtering mode.
Sometimes this is not possible, most likely when the commit is so long ago that
it's outside of the initial 300 range. In that case, at least select the commit
again that was selected before I entered filtering; this is still better than
arbitrarily keeping the same selection index.
To support this, we turn the confirmation prompt of the "Create fixup commit"
command into a menu; creating a fixup commit is the first entry, so that
"shift-F, enter" behaves the same as before. But there are additional entries
for creating "amend!" commits, either with or without file changes. These make
it easy to reword commit messages of existing commits.
We pass all of them to a single editor command, hoping that the editor will be
able to handle multiple files (VS Code and vim do).
We ignore directories that happen to be in the selection range; this makes it
easier to edit multiple files in different folders in tree view. We show an
error if only directories are selected, though.
We've seen a lot of issues recently where people complain that lazygit doesn't
behave as documented, but that was only because they were running the latest
release but were looking at the documentation of master. Make the documentation
links in the status panel point to the release that they are using in the hope
that this will help a little bit with this problem.
Some operations don't support switching to the editor from the commit message
panel; an example is the commit message panel that appears when moving a custom
patch into a new commit. Disable the "open in editor" menu entry in this case,
instead of silently doing nothing.
By default we now search for substrings; you can search for multiple substrings
by separating them with spaces. Add a config option gui.filterMode that can be
set to 'fuzzy' to switch back to the previous behavior.
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.
