- **PR Description**
It is sometimes useful to perform a `git rebase -x "make test"
origin/main` in order to verify that all commits of the current branch
are green. However, if the rebase stops in the middle because one of
those tests fail, it's easy to accidentally press `m <enter>` in lazygit
after amending some fix, not realizing that the rest of the tests will
now run invisibly inside lazygit.
This PR makes two changes to improve this situation:
- It shows exec todos in the commits panel:
<img width="482" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/assets/1225667/608b24e8-9f3d-4a5f-9bb5-e16268c86e83">
- when continuing a rebase and there are exec todos, it suspends itself
to the background so that you can see the output of the test runs in the
terminal.
We can improve this further in the future; for example, it would often
be useful to be able to delete some of the exec commands, this is not
currently possible. But it's still better than before.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to delete them. This would often be useful, but
our todo rewriting mechanisms rely on being able to find todos by some
identifier (hash for pick, ref for update-ref), and exec todos don't have a
unique identifier.
If exactly one candidate from inside the current branch is found, we return that
one even if there are also hunks belonging to master commits; we disregard those
in this case.
Copy the slice into a variable and use that throughout the whole operation; this
makes us a little more robust against the model refreshing concurrently.
It has two modified hunks, one for a master commit and one for a branch commit.
Currently we get an error mentioning those two commits, but we would like to
silently select the branch commit.
- **PR Description**
This includes the demos when using `make integration-test-all`, and
speeds them up a little bit when run in this way by disabling Wait calls
when running in headless mode.
This will guard against demos breaking when we make behavior changes, as
happened several times in the past (most recently in #3636.
- **PR Description**
In the rebase menu, add a command "Rebase onto base branch". This makes
it more convenient to rebase onto master (or main), because
- you don't need to bring your local version of the base branch up to
date first
- you don't have to remember which of your main branches (e.g. "main",
"devel", or "1.0-hotfixes") your current branch is based on.
This is sitting on top of #3614.
Closes#3546.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
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.
Instead, disable the individual entries in the menu.
This is necessary because we are going to add another entry to the menu that is
independent of the selected branch.
- **PR Description**
Add a command similar to the existing "Show divergence from upstream",
but for the base branch instead. Useful to see what you would rebase
onto if you were to rebase onto the base branch now.
It could be considered somewhat questionable that we display both the
Remote and Local sections of the log here; the Local section isn't
really interesting because it's always identical to what you see in the
Commits view. I chose to still show it since it makes the divergence
view look more familiar, and I think overall it makes it clearer what
you're looking at.
This is sitting on top of #3613 and uses some of the code that was added
there.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
- **PR Description**
Add a new config option `showDivergenceFromBaseBranch`; if not "none",
it indicates in the branches view for each branch if it has fallen
behind its base branch, and optionally by how much. If set to
"onlyArrow", it will append `↓` after the branch status; if set to
"arrowAndNumber", it appends `↓17`, where the count indicates how many
commits it is behind the base branch. These are colored in blue, and go
after the existing yellow `↓3↑7` indication of divergence from the
upstream.
The option is off by default, since we are afraid that people may find
this too noisy. We may reconsider this choice in the future if the
response is positive.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
Previously the entire status was colored in a single color, so the API made
sense. This is going to change in the next commit, so now we must include the
color in the string returned from BranchStatus(), which means that callers who
need to do hit detection or measure the length need to decolorize it.
While we're at it, switch the order of ↑3↓7 to ↓7↑3. For some reason that I
can't really explain I find it more logical this way. The software out there is
pretty undecided about it, it seems: VS Code puts ↓7 first, and so does the
shell prompt that comes with git; git status and git branch -v put "ahead" first
though. Shrug.
It is a valid case for a branch to share no history with any of the main
branches, in which case git merge-base returns an error (and an empty string).
Since we can't distinguish this from one of the main branches having been
deleted, we shouldn't invalidate the cache in that case.
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.
- **PR Description**
Improve the `ctrl-f` command so that it also works when there are no
hunks with deleted lines in the diff. This is very useful, for example,
when a fixup commit adds a comment to a function that was added in the
PR.
Since the exact behavior of the command is getting very complex and hard
to understand, I added a design document that describes what it does,
and also how it differs from git-absorb which does a very similar thing.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
This document explains why we made certain decisions about the behavior of the
command. This is too detailed for users, but could be useful in the future if we
want to discuss further improvements.
We aren't using them, yet, except for deciding whether to show the warning about
hunks with only added lines.
Add a bit of test coverage for parseDiff while we're at it.
- **PR Description**
This fixes three different problems; two were recent regressions, one
has never worked.
1. For branches whose remote is not stored locally, don't ask to force
push right away. Try a normal push first. This broke with #3528.
2. For branches whose remote is not stored locally (but only for those),
if the server rejects the update, ask to force push. This broke with
#3387.
3. When force-pushing a branch whose remote is not stored locally, use
`--force` instead of `--force-with-lease`; otherwise the push would
always fail with a "stale info" error. This has never worked.
Fixes#3588.
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.
This broke with #3528.
If the remote branch is not stored locally, we only see question marks in the
branch status. In this case we can't tell whether we need to force-push, so it's
best to assume that we don't, and see if the server rejects the push, and react
to that by asking to force push. This second part is also broken right now,
we'll fix this in the next commit.
- **PR Description**
When branches are sorted by recency we have this logic that first loads the
branches so that they can be rendered quickly; in parallel, it starts loading
the reflog in the background, and when that's done, it loads the branches again
so that they get their recency values. This means that branches are loaded twice
at startup.
We don't need this logic when branches are not sorted by recency, so we can
simply load branches and reflog in parallel like everything else.
This shouldn't change any user observable behavior, it just avoids doing
unnecessary work at startup.
When branches are sorted by recency we have this logic that first loads the
branches so that they can be rendered quickly; in parallel, it starts loading
the reflog in the background, and when that's done, it loads the branches again
so that they get their recency values. This means that branches are loaded twice
at startup.
We don't need this logic when branches are not sorted by recency, so we can
simply load branches and reflog in parallel like everything else.
This shouldn't change any user observable behavior, it just avoids doing
unnecessary work at startup.
Pin golangci version to 1.58.
It is annoying when CI builds suddenly start to fail because the linter
was updated and finds new things to complain about.
Updating the linter and fixing the code accordingly should be a
dedicated activity.
It is annoying when CI builds suddenly start to fail because the linter was
updated and finds new things to complain about.
Updating the linter and fixing the code accordingly should be a dedicated
activity.
### PR Description
- Fix calculation of tooltip height; for tooltips that are just one or
two characters longer than the available width, the last word would be
cut off. On my screen this happened for the tooltip for the fixup
command.
- Fix tooltip of fixup command.
Fixes#3600.
For tooltips that are just one or two characters longer than the available
width, the last word would be cut off. On my screen this happened for the
tooltip for the fixup command.
- **PR Description**
Add property `outputTitle` to CustomCommand. It can optionally be used
to set the title of the panel that shows the output of a command (when
`showOutput` is true). If left unset, the command string is used as the
title.
Closes#3576.
It can optionally be used to set the title of the panel that shows the output of
a command (when showOutput is true). If left unset, the command string is used
as the title.
It used to be a common thing to have to update `Config.md` in a PR (and
we often forgot despite the template). As of #3565 this is no longer
necessary, so remove this from the template.
Updating docs in general is still a good thing to think about, so we
leave this in.
It used to be a common thing to have to update Config.md in a PR (and we often
forgot despite the template). As of #3565 this is no longer necessary, so remove
this from the template.
Updating docs in general is still a good thing to think about, so we leave this
in.
- **PR Description**
Some people push to a different branch (or even remote) than they pull
from. One example is described in #3437. Our logic of when to request a
force push is not appropriate for these workflows: we check the
configured upstream branch for divergence, but that's the one you pull
from. We should instead check the push-to branch for divergence.
Fixes#3437.
To determine whether we need to ask for force pushing, we need to query the push
branch rather than the upstream branch, in case they are not the same.
In a triangular workflow the branch that you're pulling from is not the same as
the one that you are pushing to. For example, some people find it useful to set
the upstream branch to origin/master so that pulling effectively rebases onto
master, and set the push.default git config to "current" so that "feature"
pushes to origin/feature.
Another example is a fork-based workflow where "feature" has upstream set to
upstream/main, and the repo has remote.pushDefault set to "origin", so pushing
on "feature" pushes to origin/feature.
This commit adds new fields to models.Branch that store the ahead/behind
information against the push branch; for the "normal" workflow where you pull
and push from/to the upstream branch, AheadForPush/BehindForPush will be the
same as AheadForPull/BehindForPull.
Our code doesn't realize that we need to prompt the user to force push, when the
branch is up-to-date with its upstream but not with the branch that we're
pushing to.
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.
This guards against accidentally renaming a model field and thereby breaking
user's custom commands. With this change we'll get a build failure when we do
that.
- **PR Description**
Allow deleting and editing custom command history items. Deleting is
done by hitting `d` on a suggestion; editing is done by hitting `e`,
which fills the selected item into the command prompt for further
editing.
Closes#2528.
For custom commands it is useful to select an earlier command and have it copied
to the prompt for further editing. This can be done by hitting 'e' now.
For other types of suggestion panels we don't enable this behavior, as you can't
create arbitrary new items there that don't already exist as a suggestion.
In the custom commands panel you can now tab to the suggestions and hit 'd' to
delete items from there. Useful if you mistyped a command and don't want it to
appear in your history any more.
- **PR Description**
This PR fixes a problem with lazygit locking up completely when there's
a commit whose subject line is longer than approximately 65500
characters.
Fixes#3529.
We are going to truncate overly long lines returned from git log, and the most
likely field that is going to make the line too long is the subject; so we must
put it last, otherwise we'd end up with not enough fields to split when it's too
long.
It might not be obvious from the diff what's happening to the mock command
output in the test: it didn't have the divergence field (">") at all, which was
kind of a bug. It didn't matter for these tests though, because we are not
testing the divergence here, and our production code happens to be resilient
against it missing. But now we must add the ">" field before the subject.
Scanners can return errors (e.g. ErrTooLong), and if we don't handle it, the
cmd.Wait() call below will block forever because nobody drains the command's
output.
This happens for CommitLoader.GetCommits when there's a commit whose subject
line is longer than approx. 65500 characters; in that case, lazygit would lock
up completely. With this fix it remains usable, but the commit list is truncated
before the bad commit, which is not good enough. We'll improve that in the
remaining commits of this branch.
- **PR Description**
Clicking in the status side panel should activate it; also, clicking on
the repo name should bring up the recent repositories menu, and clicking
on the "(rebasing)" text should bring up the rebase options menu. All of
this was broken for a long time, since somewhere around the big
refactoring of March 2023. (The exact commit where it broke is hard to
bisect, since many of the commits in that area either don't compile or
crash at startup...)
I'm fixing this not because I think it's super important functionality
(nobody seems to have missed it for over a year), but because I have to
touch this code in another PR, and noticed that it wasn't working.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [ ] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
Deadlock reporting broke in e1ceb6892a (last September); since then, it
was *off* when running debug builds normally, but *on* when debugging an
integration test. Both of which are exactly opposite of what we want.
Deadlock reporting broke in e1ceb6892a; since then, it was *off* when running
debug builds normally, but *on* when debugging an integration test. Both of
which are exactly opposite of what we want.
- **PR Description**
In the "View divergence from upstream" view we have so far disabled the
commit graph because it was too difficult to implement properly. I
really miss it though, so here's a PR that enables it there, too.
For feature branches it is not essential, because these usually don't
contain merges and the graph is a trivial line. However, for the master
branch against its upstream it is useful too see how many PRs were
merged since you last fetched it, and the graph helps a lot with that.
Also, when we implement #3536 it will be very useful there, too.
Change `func displayCommit()` so all the individual strings are built first,
then the whole thing `cols` is put together. Before, most strings were built
prior to constructing `cols`, but a few were built inside the `cols`
construction.
Stefan Haller
