One of the comments we are deleting here said:
// Comparing just the hash is not enough; we need to compare both the
// action and the hash, as the hash could appear multiple times (e.g. in a
// pick and later in a merge).
I don't remember what I was thinking when I wrote this code, but it's nonsense
of course. Maybe I was thinking that the hash that appears in a "merge" todo
would be the hash of the commit that is being merged in (which would then
actually appear in an earlier pick), but it isn't, it's the hash of the merge
commit itself (so that the rebase can reuse its commit message). Which means
that hashes are unique, no need to compare the action.
When enabled, it adds "+n -m" after each file in the Files panel to show how
many lines were added and deleted, as with `git diff --numstat` on the command
line.
It is needed by both call sites of this function. This has the added benefit
that the argument doesn't unnecessarily show up in the status view when diffing
mode is on.
We will need this because under some conditions we are going to use this
function to edit a range of commits, and we can't set merge commits to "edit".
This corresponds to the code in startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit which has similar
logic.
It is a bit unfortunate that we will have these two different ways of setting
todos to edit: startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit does it after stopping in the
rebase, in the Then function of its refresh, but InteractiveRebase does it in
the daemon with a ChangeTodoActionsInstruction. It still makes sense though,
given how InteractiveRebase works.
This not only affects "edit", but also "drop", "fixup", and "squash".
Previously, when trying to use these for a range selection that includes a merge
commit, they would fail with the cryptic error message "Some todos not found in
git-rebase-todo"; now they simply exclude the merge commit. I'm not sure if one
is better or worse than the other, and we should probably simply disable the
commands when a merge commit is selected, but that's out of scope in this PR.
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.
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/
In practice, using path seems to work too, since Windows seems to be capable of
dealing with a path like C:/x/y instead of C:\x\y; but it's cleaner to do this
properly.
This change reduces the number of calls during application startup to
one, calling GetRepoPaths() earlier than previously and plumbing the
repoPaths struct around to achieve this end.
- Introduced a new optional user config command, allBranchesLogCmds
- When pressing 'a' in the Status view, cycle between non-empty, non-identical log commands
- There will always be at least one command to run, since allBranhesLogCmd has a default
- Update documentation & write an integration test
- Update translation string
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.
Several custom patch commands on parts of an added file would fail with the
confusing error message "error: new file XXX depends on old contents". These
were dropping the custom patch from the original commit, moving the patch to a
new commit, moving it to a later commit, or moving it to the index.
We fix this by converting the patch header from an added file to a diff against
an empty file. We do this not just for the purpose of applying the patch, but
also for rendering it and copying it to the clip board. I'm not sure it matters
much in these cases, but it does feel more correct for a filtered patch to be
presented this way.
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.
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.
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.
In go 1.22, loop variables are redeclared with each iteration of the
loop, rather than simple updated on each iteration. This means that we
no longer need to manually redeclare variables when they're closed over
by a function.
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.
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/
Sometimes it takes a while to get PRs accepted upstream, and this blocks our
progress. Since I'm pretty much the only one making changes there anyway, it
makes sense to point to my fork directly.
