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.
This PR captures the code coverage from our unit and integration tests. At the
moment it simply pushes the result to Codacy, a platform that assists with
improving code health. Right now the focus is just getting visibility but I want
to experiment with alerts on PRs when a PR causes a drop in code coverage.
To be clear: I'm not a dogmatist about this: I have no aspirations to get to
100% code coverage, and I don't consider lines-of-code-covered to be a perfect
metric, but it is a pretty good heuristic for how extensive your tests are.
The good news is that our coverage is actually pretty good which was a surprise
to me!
As a conflict of interest statement: I'm in Codacy's 'Pioneers' program which
provides funding and mentorship, and part of the arrangement is to use Codacy's
tooling on lazygit. This is something I'd have been happy to explore even
without being part of the program, and just like with any other static analysis
tool, we can tweak it to fit our use case and values.
## How we're capturing code coverage
This deserves its own section. Basically when you build the lazygit binary you
can specify that you want the binary to capture coverage information when it
runs. Then, if you run the binary with a GOCOVERDIR env var, it will write
coverage information to that directory before exiting.
It's a similar story with unit tests except with those you just specify the
directory inline via `-test.gocoverdir`.
We run both unit tests and integration tests separately in CI, _and_ we run them
parallel with different OS's and git versions. So I've got each step uploading
the coverage files as an artefact, and then in a separate step we combine all
the artefacts together and generate a combined coverage file, which we then
upload to codacy (but in future we can do other things with it like warn in a PR
if code coverage decreases too much).
Another caveat is that when running integration tests, not only do we want to
obtain code coverage from code executed by the test binary, we also want to
obtain code coverage from code executed by the test runner. Otherwise, for each
integration test you add, the setup code (which is run by the test runner, not
the test binary) will be considered un-covered and for a large setup step it may
appear that your PR _decreases_ coverage on net. Go doesn't easily let you
exclude directories from coverage reports so it's better to just track the
coverage from both the runner and the binary.
The binary expects a GOCOVERDIR env var but the test runner expects a
test.gocoverdir positional arg and if you pass the positional arg it will
internally overwrite GOCOVERDIR to some random temp directory and if you then
pass that to the test binary, it doesn't seem to actually write to it by the
time the test finishes. So to get around that we're using LAZYGIT_GOCOVERDIR and
then within the test runner we're mapping that to GOCOVERDIR before running the
test binary. So they both end up writing to the same directory. Coverage data
files are named to avoid conflicts, including something unique to the process,
so we don't need to worry about name collisions between the test runner and the
test binary's coverage files. We then merge the files together purely for the
sake of having fewer artefacts to upload.
## Misc
Initially I was able to have all the instances of '/tmp/code_coverage' confined
to the ci.yml which was good because it was all in one place but now it's spread
across ci.yml and scripts/run_integration_tests.sh and I don't feel great about
that but can't think of a way to make it cleaner.
I believe there's a use case for running scripts/run_integration_tests.sh
outside of CI (so that you can run tests against older git versions locally) so
I've made it that unless you pass the LAZYGIT_GOCOVERDIR env var to that script,
it skips all the code coverage stuff.
On a separate note: it seems that Go's coverage report is based on percentage of
statements executed, whereas codacy cares more about lines of code executed, so
codacy reports a higher percentage (e.g. 82%) than Go's own coverage report
(74%).
For the "cli" and "tui" modes of the test runner there's a "-race" parameter to
turn it on; for running tests on CI with go test, you turn it on by setting the
environment variable LAZYGIT_RACE_DETECTOR to a non-empty value.
This prevents commands like "go test ./..." from looking into it, and it
prevents VS Code's Problems panel from showing errors about the go files in that
folder.
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
From the go 1.19 release notes:
Command and LookPath no longer allow results from a PATH search to be found relative to the current directory. This removes a common source of security problems but may also break existing programs that depend on using, say, exec.Command("prog") to run a binary named prog (or, on Windows, prog.exe) in the current directory. See the os/exec package documentation for information about how best to update such programs.
We've been sometimes using lo and sometimes using my slices package, and we need to pick one
for consistency. Lo is more extensive and better maintained so we're going with that.
My slices package was a superset of go's own slices package so in some places I've just used
the official one (the methods were just wrappers anyway).
I've also moved the remaining methods into the utils package.
Previously we used a single-line prompt for a tag annotation. Now we're using the commit message
prompt.
I've had to update other uses of that prompt to allow the summary and description labels to
be passed in
Older versions of git don't support the -b option yet. However, no version of
git complains about the -c option, even when the init.defaultBranch config is
not supported.
For older git versions we won't be able to support any other main branch than
"master", so hard-code that in Init.
This doesn't fix anything for older versions yet; see the next commit for that.
I want to see how we go removing all retry logic within a test. Lazygit should be trusted to tell us when it's no longer busy,
and if it that proves false we should fix the issue in the code rather than being lenient in the tests
The title was saying "Unstage lines", which was just wrong. The text said
"Delete lines", which can be seen as a bit misleading; we are only discarding
the changes to the selected lines, not deleting the lines themselves.
For consistency, rename the config variable skipUnstageLineWarning accordingly.
I don't know why we were setting the initial context to CurrentSideContext
and not just CurrentContext in the first place. If there is no current context
in either case it'll default to the files context. So the only issue is if
we anticipated that some random context would be focused and we didn't want to
activate that. But I can't think of any situation where that would happen.
A better refactor would be to allow matchers to assert against either a string or a slice of cells, so that I could have
the same ergonomics that I have elsewhere, but this is a start.
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.
By constructing an arg vector manually, we no longer need to quote arguments
Mandate that args must be passed when building a command
Now you need to provide an args array when building a command.
There are a handful of places where we need to deal with a string,
such as with user-defined custom commands, and for those we now require
that at the callsite they use str.ToArgv to do that. I don't want
to provide a method out of the box for it because I want to discourage its
use.
For some reason we were invoking a command through a shell when amending a
commit, and I don't believe we needed to do that as there was nothing user-
supplied about the command. So I've switched to using a regular command out-
side the shell there
