This requires us to change the 'v' keybinding for paste to something else,
now that 'v' is used globally for toggling range select. So I'm using
'shift+v' and I'm likewise changing 'c' to 'shift+c' for copying, so
that they're consistent.
We will need to clearly communicate this change in keybindings.
We're not fully standardising here: different contexts can store their range state however
they like. What we are standardising on is that now the view is always responsible for
highlighting the selected lines, meaning the context/controller needs to tell the view
where the range start is.
Two convenient benefits from this change:
1) we no longer need bespoke code in integration tests for asserting on selected lines because
we can just ask the view
2) line selection in staging/patch-building/merge-conflicts views now look the same as in
list views i.e. the highlight applies to the whole line (including trailing space)
I also noticed a bug with merge conflicts not rendering the selection on focus though I suspect
it wasn't a bug with any real consequences when the view wasn't displaying the selection.
I'm going to scrap the selectedRangeBgColor config and just let it use the single line
background color. Hopefully nobody cares, but there's really no need for an extra config.
A common issue I have is that I want to move a commit from the top of my branch
all the way down to the first commit on the branch. To do that, I need to navigate
down to the first commit on my branch, press 'e' to start an interactive rebase,
then navigate back up to the top of the branch, then move my commit back down to
the base. This is annoying.
Similarly annoying is moving the commit one-by-one without explicitly starting
an interactive rebase, because then each individual step is its own rebase which
takes a while in aggregate.
This PR allows you to press 'i' from the commits view to start an interactive
rebase from an 'appropriate' base. By appropriate, we mean that we want to start
from the HEAD and stop when we reach the first merge commit or commit on the main
branch. This may end up including more commits than you need, but it doesn't make
a difference.
The algorithm works by blaming the deleted lines, so if a hunk contains only
added lines, we can only hope that it also belongs in the same commit. Warn the
user about this.
Note: the warning might be overly agressive, we'll have to see if this is
annoying. The reason is that it depends on the diff context size whether added
lines go into their own hunk or are grouped together with other added or deleted
lines into one hunk. However, our algorithm uses a diff context size of 0,
because that makes it easiest to parse the diff; this results in hunks having
only added lines more often than what the user sees. For example, moving a line
of code down by two lines will likely result in a single hunk for the user, but
in two hunks for our algorithm. On the other hand, being this strict makes the
warning consistent. We could consider using the user's diff context size in the
algorithm, but then it would depend on the current context size whether the
warning appears, which could be confusing. Plus, it would make the algorithm
quite a bit more complicated.
SplitCommitMessageAndDescription splits at the first '\n\n' that it finds (if
there is one), which in this case is between the two paragraphs of the
description. This is wrong.
Previously there was no way to render a view's search status without also moving the cursor
to the current search match. This caused issues where we wanted to display the status
after leaving the view and coming back, or when beginning a new search from within the
view.
This commit separates the two use cases so we only move the cursor when we're actually
selecting the next search match
This can be useful when you know that a cherry-picked commit would conflict at
the tip of your branch, but doesn't at the beginning of the branch (or
somewhere in the middle). In that case you want to be able to edit the commit
before where you want to insert the cherry-picked commits, and then paste to
insert them into the todo list at that point.
Add co-author to commits
Add addCoAuthor command for commits
- Implement the `addCoAuthor` command to add co-authors to commits.
- Utilize suggestions helpers to populate author names from the suggestions list.
- Added command to gui at `LocalCommitsController`.
This commit introduces the `addCoAuthor` command, which allows users to easily add co-authors to their commits. The co-author names are populated from the suggestions list, minimizing the chances of user input errors. The co-authors are added using the Co-authored-by metadata format recognized by GitHub and GitLab.
This also fixes a bug where after the rebase each commit in the commits view had a tick against it because we hadn't
refreshed the view since the base commit was no longer marked
If the command used by OSCommand.OpenLink fails, lazygit crashes. With this change, if the OpenLink command fails, lazygit just shows a dialog inviting the user to visit the relevant URL.
Fixes#2882
I've been thinking about this for a while: I think it looks really cool if nuking your working tree
actually results in a nuke animation.
So I've added an opt-out config for it
This allows to do the equivalent of "git rebase --onto <target> <base>", by
first marking the <base> commit with the new command, and then selecting the
target branch and invoking the usual rebase command there.
It's tricky to get this right for reflog commits wrt what's the current branch
for each one; so just disable it entirely here, it's probably not something
anybody needs here.
There are quite a few paths you might want to get e.g. the repo's path, the worktree's path,
the repo's git dir path, the worktree's git dir path. I want these all obtained once and
then used when needed rather than having to have IO whenever we need them. This is not so
much about reducing time spent on IO as it is about not having to care about errors every time
we want a path.
