This broke with 81b497d186 (#3387). In that PR I claimed that we never want to
ask for force-pushing if the server rejected the update, on the assumption that
this can only happen because the remote tracking branch is not up to date, and
users should just fetch in this case. However, I didn't realize it's even
possible to have a branch whose upstream branch is not stored locally; in this
case we can't tell ahead of time whether a force push is going to be necessary,
so we _have_ to rely on the server response to find out. But we only want to do
that in this specific case, so this is not quite an exact revert of 81b497d186.
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.
Previously we would hide it if no onSwitchToEditor function was set; that was
from a time when <c-o> was bound directly to the switch-to-editor command. Now
it is bound to showing a menu, and that menu is always available even if no
onSwitchToEditor function is set. (We rather need to disable the switch to
editor item _within_ that menu, see next commit.)
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.
To do that, change the "Apply fixup commits" command to show a menu with the two
choices "in current branch" and "above the selected commit"; we make "in current
branch" the default, as it's the more useful one most of the time, even though
it is a breaking change for those who are used to "shift-S enter" meaning
"squash above selected".
This adds a bunch of tooltips to keybindings and updates some keybinding descriptions (i.e. labels).
It's in preparation for displaying more keybindings on-screen (in the bottom right of the screen),
and so due in part to laziness it shortens some descriptions so that we don't need to manage both
a short and long description (for on-screen vs in-menu). Nonetheless I've added a ShortDescription
field for when we do want to have both a short and long description.
You'll notice that some keybindings I deemed unworthy of the options view have longer descriptions,
because I could get away with it.
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 have not been good at consistent casing so far. Now we use 'Sentence case' everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Also Removing 'Lc' prefix from i18n field names: the 'Lc' stood for lowercase but now that everything
is in 'Sentence case' there's no need for the distinction.
I've got a couple lower case things I've kept: namely, things that show up in parentheses.
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.
It's not so much the total number of commits that matters here, it's just
whether we are on the first one. (This includes the other condition.)
This allows us to get rid of the condition in rebase.go.
Previous translation was completely unacceptable. As a native Polish speaker I consulted various Polish documentation files and translated almost all content.
My translation may contain minor errors due to the possible lack of context for some text.
