Given that we now persist search/filter states even after a side context loses focus, we need to make it really
clear to the user that the context is currently being searched/filtered
This is a pickle: initially I wanted it so that a filter would cancel automatically if the current context lost focus.
But there are situations where you want to retain the focus, e.g. when a popup appears, or when you view the commits
of a branch. The issue is that when you view the commits of a branch, the branches context is removed from the context
stack. Even if this were not the case, you could imagine going branches -> sub-commits -> files -> sub-commits, where
in that case branches would definitely be off the stack upon navigating to the files context.
So because I'm too lazy to find a proper solution to this problem, I'm just making it so that filters in side contexts
are retained unless explicitly cancelled.
There's another edge case this commit handles which is that if I'm in the sub-commits context via the branches context
and start a search, then navigate to the reflog context and hit enter to get to the sub-commits context again, I need
to cancel the search before I switch. Likewise with the commit files context.
The first line of the diff pane would show branch heads (e.g.
commit dd9100ccc8b69a8b14b21a84e34854b5acfb871a (mybranch, origin/mybranch)
only when a pager is used. The reason is that the default of the --decorate
option to git show is "auto", which means to show the decoration only when
output goes to a tty. Lazygit uses a pty only when a pager is used, so the
decoration wouldn't show when no pager is used.
Since the branch head annotation is useful and we always want to see it, force
it by explicitly passing --decorate.
This solves three problems:
1. When the local main branch is behind its upstream, the merged status of
commits of a feature branch sitting on origin/main was not correct. This can
easily happen when you rebase a branch onto origin/main instead of main, and
don't bother keeping local main up to date.
2. It works when you don't have the main branch locally at all. This could
happen when you check out a colleague's feature branch that goes off of
"develop", but you don't have "develop" locally yourself because you normally
only work on "main".
3. It also works when you work on a main branch itself, e.g. by committing to it
directly, or by merging a branch locally. These local commits on a main
branch would previously be shown in green instead of red; this broke with
910a61dc46.
For consistency with the previous commit.
Note that this menu entry is used both for unstaged and for staged changes, and
for staged changes it is not quite accurate, as we are not discarding changes in
that case (just unstaging them). Not sure it's worth fixing this; it's still
better than "Delete", anyway.
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.
The assert package is already very good at displaying errors, including printing
a diff of expected and actual value, so there's no point in printing the same
information again ourselves.
This test is almost identical to swap_in_rebase_with_conflict.go, except that it
sets the commit that will conflict to "edit".
This test is interesting because there's special code needed to determine
whether an "edit" command conflicted or not, i.e. whether to show the "confl"
entry. In this case we do. We have lots of other tests already that have "edit"
commands that don't conflict, so that's covered already.
When stopping in a rebase because of a conflict, it is nice to see the commit
that git is trying to apply. Create a fake todo entry labelled "conflict" for
this, and show the "<-- YOU ARE HERE ---" string for that one (in red) instead
of for the real current head.
This test is interesting because it already behaves as desired: since git has
rescheduled the "pick" command, we do _not_ want to show a "conflict" entry in
this case, as we would see the same commit twice then.
