When you are in the middle of a rebase, and you cherry-pick a commit which
conflicts, it helps to be clear on whether you are prompted to continue the
cherry-pick or the rebase.
This makes it possible to use date and time in initial values like this:
```yaml
initialValue: 'ruudk/{{ runCommand "date +\"%Y/%-m\"" }}/'
```
I want to use this to configure my BranchPrefix like this:
```yaml
git:
branchPrefix: 'ruudk/{{ runCommand "date +\"%Y/%-m\"" }}/'
```
Assert the entire lines using Equals instead of Contains. This makes the tests a
bit easier to read, and it makes it much easier to decide how they need to be
changed when we change the layout (like we do in the last commit of this
branch).
It is true that this requires changing all these tests for any future UI
changes, but I think this is a good price to pay; those adaptions are trivial
and can be done without thinking.
The code that tries to reselect the same branch again uses GetItems, which in
case of filtering is the filtered list. After replacing the branches slice with
a new one, the filtered list is no longer up to date, so we must reapply the
filter before working with it. It so happens that refreshView does that, so
simply call that before setting the selection again; I don't think the order
matters in this case. Otherwise we'd have to insert another call to
ReApplyFilter before the call to GetItems, which we can avoid this way.
Note that this doesn't actually make anything work better in the case of
deleting a branch, since we can't reselect the deleted branch anyway of course.
But it avoids a possible crash if the branch that was deleted was the last one
in the unfiltered list.
The easiest way to do that is to rename the local branch after pushing.
This shows various levels of brokenness for the reset and rebase to upstream
commands: both menu entries display the wrong upstream branch name in the menu
(the local one rather than the remote one); executing the rebase command works
correctly though, the rebase command uses the right branch name. Resetting
fails, though.
We'll fix this in the next commit.
We allow deleting remote branches (or local and remote branches) only if *all*
selected branches have one.
We show the a warning about force-deleting as soon as at least one of the
selected branches is not fully merged.
The added test only tests a few of the most interesting cases; I didn't try to
cover the whole space of possible combinations, that would have been too much.
When creating a PR against a selected branch (via O = "create pull request
options"), the user will first be asked to select a remote (if there is more
than one). After that, the suggestion area is populated with all remote branches
at that origin - instead of all local ones. After all, creating a PR against a
branch that doesn't exist on the remote won't work.
Please note that for the "PR is not filed against 'origin' remote" use case
(e.g. when contributing via a fork that is 'origin' to a GitHub project that is
'upstream'), the opened URL will not be correct. This is not a regression and
will be fixed in an upcoming PR.
Fixes#1826.
Currently we try to delete a branch normally, and if git returns an error and
its output contains the text "branch -D", then we prompt the user to force
delete, and try again using -D. Besides just being ugly, this has the
disadvantage that git's logic to decide whether a branch is merged is not very
good; it only considers a branch merged if it is either reachable from the
current head, or from its own upstream. In many cases I want to delete a branch
that has been merged to master, but I don't have master checked out, so the
current branch is really irrelevant, and it should rather (or in addition) check
whether the branch is reachable from one of the main branches. The problem is
that git doesn't know what those are.
But lazygit does, so make the check on our side, prompt the user if necessary,
and always use -D. This is both cleaner, and works better.
See this mailing list discussion for more:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/bf6308ce-3914-4b85-a04b-4a9716bac538@haller-berlin.de/
It's maybe not very common, but it's totally possible for a remote branch to
have a different name than the local branch. This test shows that we don't
support this properly when deleting the remote branch.
The current behaviour when creating a new branch off of a remote branch
is to always track the branch it was created from.
For example, if a branch 'my_branch' is created off of the remote branch
'fix_crash_13', then 'my_branch' will be tracking the remote
'fix_crash_13' branch.
It is common practice to have both the local and remote branches named
the same when the local is tracking the remote one. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that 'my_branch' should not track the remote
'fix_crash_13' branch.
The new behaviour when creating a new branch off of a remote branch is
to track the branch it was created from only if the branch names match.
If the branch names DO NOT match then the newly created branch will not
track the remote branch it was created from.
For example, if a user creates a new branch 'fix_crash_13' off of the
remote branch 'fix_crash_13', then the local 'fix_crash_13' branch will
track the remote 'fix_crash_13' branch.
However, if the user creates a new branch called 'other_branch_name' off
of the remote branch 'fix_crash_13', then the local 'other_branch_name'
branch will NOT track the remote 'fix_crash_13' branch.
Put it into the individual menu items instead.
Again, this is necessary because we are going to add another entry to the menu
that is independent of the selected branch.
Use Equals instead of Contains for asserting the status view content. This
solves the problem that we might assert Contains("↓2 repo"), but what it really
shows is "↑1↓2 repo", and the test still succeeds. At best this is confusing.
Also, this way we don't have to use the awkward DoesNotContain to check that it
really doesn't show a checkmark.
To do this, we need to fix two whitespace problems:
- there was always a space at the end for no reason. Simply remove it. It was
added in efb51eee96, but from looking at that diff it seems it was added
accidentally.
- there was a space at the beginning if the branch status was empty. This is
actually a cosmetic problem, for branches without a status the text was
indented by once space. Change this so that the space is added conditionally.
It's a bit awkward that we have to use Decolorise here, but this will go away
again later in this branch.
It is unexpected that a function called PushBranch also sets the upstream
branch; also, we want to add a PushBranch function in the next commit that
doesn't.
The rebase.updateRefs feature of git is very useful to rebase a stack of
branches and keep everything nicely stacked; however, it is usually in the way
when you make a copy of a branch and want to rebase it "away" from the original
branch in some way or other. For example, the original branch might sit on main,
and you want to rebase the copy onto devel to see if things still compile there.
Or you want to do some heavy history rewriting experiments on the copy, but keep
the original branch in case the experiments fail. Or you want to split a branch
in two because it contains two unrelated sets of changes; so you make a copy,
and drop half of the commits from the copy, then check out the original branch
and drop the other half of the commits from it.
In all these cases, git's updateRefs feature insists on moving the original
branch along with the copy in the first rebase that you make on the copy. I
think this is a bug in git, it should create update-ref todos only for branches
that point into the middle of your branch (because only then do they form a
stack), not when they point at the head (because then it's a copy). I had a long
discussion about this on the git mailing list [1], but people either don't agree
or don't care enough.
So we fix this on our side: whenever we start a rebase for whatever reason, be
it interactive, non-interactive, or behind-the-scenes, we drop any update-ref
todos that are at the very top of the todo list, which fixes all the
above-mentioned scenarios nicely.
I will admit that there's one scenario where git's behavior is the desired one,
and the fix in this PR makes it worse: when you create a new branch off of an
existing one, with the intention of creating a stack of branches, but before you
make the first commit on the new branch you realize some problem with the first
branch (e.g. a commit that needs to be reworded or dropped). It this case you do
want both branches to be affected by the change. In my experience this scenario
is much rarer than the other ones that I described above, and it's also much
easier to recover from: just check out the other branch again and hard-reset it
to the rebased one.
[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/354f9fed-567f-42c8-9da9-148a5e223022@haller-berlin.de/
This should already have been done when adding the "View divergence from
upstream" command, but now we're going to add yet another item to the menu that
is unrelated to setting or unsetting the upstream.
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
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.
