It's not possible to reliably stage things into a custom patch when "ignore
whitespace" is on, so always treat it as off here (like we do in the staging
panel).
It looks like this is a regression that was introduced in 8edad826ca.
Our refresh code may try to push a context. It does this in two places:
1) when all merge conflicts are resolved, we push a 'continue merge?' confirmation context
2) when all conflicts of a given file are resolved and we're in the merge conflicts context,
we push the files context.
Sometimes we push the confirmation context and then push the files context over it, so the user
never sees the confirmation context.
This commit fixes the race condition by adding a check to ensure that we're still in the
merge conflicts panel before we try escaping from it
We now refresh the staging panel when doing an unscoped refresh, so that if we commit from the staging panel we escape
back to the files panel if need be. But that causes flickering when doing an unscoped refresh from other contexts,
because the refreshStagingPanel function assumes that the staging panel has focus. So we're adding a guard at the top
of that function to early exit if we don't have focus.
When cycling history, we want to make it so that upon returning to the original prompt, you get your text back.
Importantly, we don't want to use the existing preservedMessage field for that because that's only for preserving
a NEW commit message, and we don't want the history stuff of the commit reword flow to overwrite that.
When we use the one panel for the entire commit message, its tricky to have a keybinding both for adding a newline and submitting.
By having two panels: one for the summary line and one for the description, we allow for 'enter' to submit the message when done from the summary panel,
and 'enter' to add a newline when done from the description panel. Alt-enter, for those who can use that key combo, also works for submitting the message
from the description panel. For those who can't use that key combo, and don't want to remap the keybinding, they can hit tab to go back to the summary panel
and then 'enter' to submit the message.
We have some awkwardness in that both contexts (i.e. panels) need to appear and disappear in tandem and we don't have a great way of handling that concept,
so we just push both contexts one after the other, and likewise remove both contexts when we escape.
This begins a big refactor of moving more code out of the Gui struct into contexts, controllers, and helpers. We also move some code into structs in the
gui package purely for the sake of better encapsulation
When cycling history, we want to make it so that upon returning to the original prompt, you get your text back.
Importantly, we don't want to use the existing preservedMessage field for that because that's only for preserving
a NEW commit message, and we don't want the history stuff of the commit reword flow to overwrite that.
When we use the one panel for the entire commit message, its tricky to have a keybinding both for adding a newline and submitting.
By having two panels: one for the summary line and one for the description, we allow for 'enter' to submit the message when done from the summary panel,
and 'enter' to add a newline when done from the description panel. Alt-enter, for those who can use that key combo, also works for submitting the message
from the description panel. For those who can't use that key combo, and don't want to remap the keybinding, they can hit tab to go back to the summary panel
and then 'enter' to submit the message.
We have some awkwardness in that both contexts (i.e. panels) need to appear and disappear in tandem and we don't have a great way of handling that concept,
so we just push both contexts one after the other, and likewise remove both contexts when we escape.
The "open" command is supposed to behave in the same way as double-clicking a
file in the Finder/Explorer. The concept of jumping to a specific line in the
file doesn't make sense for this; use "edit" instead.
The 8.2 release of OpenSSH added support for FIDO/U2F hardware
authenticators, which manifests in being able to create new types of SSH
key, named `ecdsa-sk` nad `ed25519-sk`. This is relevant to lazygit,
as those SSH keys can be used to authorise git operations over SSH, as
well as signing git commits. Actual code changes are required for
correct support, as the authentication process for these types of keys
is different than the process for types supported previously.
When an operation requiring credentials is initialised with a U2F
authenticator-backed key, the first prompt is:
Enter PIN for ${key_type} key ${path_to_key}:
at which point the user is supposed to enter a numeric (and secret) PIN,
specific to the particular FIDO/U2F authenticator using which the SSH
keypair was generated. Upon entering the correct key, the user is
supposed to physically interact with the authenticator to confirm
presence. Sometimes this is accompanied by the following text prompt:
Confirm user presence for key ${key_type} ${key_fingerprint}
This second prompt does not always occur and it is presumed that the
user will know to perform this step even if not prompted specifically.
At this stage some authenticator devices may also begin to blink a LED
to indicate that they're waiting for input.
To facilitate lazygit's interoperability with these types of keys, add
support for the first PIN prompt, which allows "fetch", "pull", and
"push" git operations to complete.
