In most real-world scenarios, name and path are usually the same. They don't
have to be though, and it's important to make sure we use the right one when
passing arguments to git commands, so change the tests to have different name
and path.
When doing a non-interactive rebase using a version of git earlier than
2.26, or by explicitly calling `git -c rebase.backend=apply rebase`,
lazygit can display the pending todos by parsing the numbered patch
files in `.git/rebase-apply/`. Unfortunately, support for this has been
broken for more than three years because of the change in 682db77401e
(the string literal "normal" should have been changed to
REBASE_MODE_NORMAL instead of REBASE_MODE_MERGING).
It's not an important bug since you can only get into this situation by
doing a rebase outside of lazygit, and then only with a pretty old git
version or by using very uncommon git options. So instead of fixing the
bug, just remove the code.
When doing a non-interactive rebase using a version of git earlier than 2.26, or
by explicitly calling `git -c rebase.backend=apply rebase`, lazygit can display
the pending todos by parsing the numbered patch files in `.git/rebase-apply/`.
Unfortunately, support for this has been broken for more than three years
because of the change in 682db77401e (the string literal "normal" should have
been changed to REBASE_MODE_NORMAL instead of REBASE_MODE_MERGING).
It's not an important bug since you can only get into this situation by doing a
rebase outside of lazygit, and then only with a pretty old git version or by
using very uncommon git options. So instead of fixing the bug, just remove the
code.
- **PR Description**
Fix a bug where merging would fail with an error message when you try to
put more than one argument in the `git.merging.args` config. This broke
with 25f8b0337e.
Fixes#3334.
This makes it possible again to pass multiple arguments, for example
"--ff-only --autostash". This won't work correctly if you want to use
an argument that contains a space, but it's very unlikely that people
will want to do that, so I think this is good enough.
- **PR Description**
When doing an interactive rebase of a stack of branches with the
`rebase.updateRefs` git config set to true, you get `update-ref` todos
between the "pick" items. In this situation we would still show the
branch head icon for each pick item that used to be the head of a
branch. This is confusing, especially when you want to move a new commit
to the head of a branch in the middle of the stack. Consider the
following scenario:
<img width="410" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/assets/1225667/438b7157-e51e-48fb-95a9-b67039a7ad30">
Here we have made a new commit at the top of the stack, entered
interactive rebase, and moved the commit down to the head of the second
branch. Now it sits between the commit that shows the branch icon of the
second branch, and the update-ref item for the second branch. This is
super confusing, and it's simply better to not show branch icons for
pick entries. That's what this PR does.
We do show the icons if the `rebase.updateRefs` config is off, because
otherwise there would be no indication of where the branches start and
end. Of course, changing anything in this case will destroy the stack,
so maybe it would be better to hide the icons in this case too to make
this more obvious. I'm unsure about that.
The additional branch head icon is more confusing than useful in this situation.
The update-ref entries show very clearly where the branch heads will go when
continuing the rebase; the information where the branch heads used to be before
the rebase is not really needed here, and just makes the display more confusing.
I'm not adding more tests here because the changes to the existing tests
demonstrate the change clearly enough.
The helix binary seems to be called "helix" on some distributions (e.g. Arch),
but "hx" on others (e.g. Fedora). Provide presets for both, so that
auto-detection from $EDITOR works.
- **PR Description**
A common workflow for me is to create a fixup commit from only some of
my current changes; to do that, I enter a file, stage a few hunks, and
then want to invoke ctrl-f to find the base commit for these changes.
Currently I need to esc back to the files panel in order to do that;
it's more convenient to be able to do this right from the staging panel.
Labelled as "ignore-for-release" because the ctrl-f feature has only
been added after the last release, so no release notes needed for this
change.
A common workflow for me is to create a fixup commit from only some of my
current changes; to do that, I enter a file, stage a few hunks, and then want to
invoke ctrl-f to find the base commit for these changes. Currently I need to esc
back to the files panel in order to do that; it's more convenient to be able to
do this right from the staging panel.
This commit introduces a new feature to the commit view, allowing users
to filter commits based on the author's name or email address. Similar
to the existing path filtering functionality, accessible through <c-s>,
this feature allows users to filter the commit history by the currently
selected commit's author if the commit view is focused, or by typing in
the author's name or email address.
This feature adds an entry to the filtering menu, to provide users with
a familiar and intuitive experience
Calling "git reset" on the command line (without further arguments)
defaults to --mixed, which is reason enough to make it the default for
us, too.
But I also find myself using --mixed more often than --soft. The main
use case for me is that I made a bunch of WIP commits, and want to turn
them into real commits when I'm done hacking. I select the last commit
before the WIP commits and reset to it, leaving all changes of all those
commits in the working directory. Since I want to start staging things
from there, I prefer those modifications to be unstaged at that point,
which is what --mixed does.
Calling "git reset" on the command line (without further arguments) defaults to
--mixed, which is reason enough to make it the default for us, too.
But I also find myself using --mixed more often than --soft. The main use case
for me is that I made a bunch of WIP commits, and want to turn them into real
commits when I'm done hacking. I select the last commit before the WIP commits
and reset to it, leaving all changes of all those commits in the working
directory. Since I want to start staging things from there, I prefer those
modifications to be unstaged at that point, which is what --mixed does.
- **PR Description**
I encountered the problem that I couldn't extract changes into a new
commit because I had difftastic as an external git tool configured.
Add `diff.noprefix=false` config Option and also specify `--no-ext-diff`
when doing the `git diff` after applying a patch.
This fixes#3107.
Though, there might be other config options that can cause problems, but
fixing these common cases should be an improvement nevertheless.
For some lists it is useful to keep the same sort order when filtering (rather
than sorting by best match like we usually do). Add an optional function to
FilteredList to make this possible, and use it whenever we show lists of things
sorted by date (branches, stashes, reflog entries), as well as menu items
because this allows us to keep the section headers in the keybindings menu,
which is useful for understanding what you are looking at when filtering.
After #3283 we need to read more lines initially so that the scrollbar
goes to its minimal height of 1 for long diffs. Without this, it would
start with a height of 2 and then become smaller after you scroll down
half the window height.
It does mean that we need to read twice the number of lines initially
(up to the limit of 5000). I think it's worth it, I find the incorrect
initial size confusing.
After #3283 we need to read more lines initially so that the scrollbar goes to
its minimal height of 1 for long diffs. Without this, it would start with a
height of 2 and then become smaller after you scroll down half the window
height.
- **PR Description**
Fix order problems when saving custom commands history
This fixes two problems:
- each time the custom commands panel was opened, the history of commands would
be shown in reversed order compared to last time. (The reason is that
lo.Reverse modifies the slice in place rather than just returning a new,
reversed slice.)
- when executing a previous command again (either by typing it in again, or by
picking it from the history), it should move to the beginning of the history,
but didn't.
We fix this by storing the history in reversed order (as the user sees it in
the panel), this makes the logic simpler. We just have to prepend rather
than append newly added commands now.
While this is theoretically a breaking change, it's not worth bothering because
the order was wrong for existing users in 50% of the cases anyway.
This fixes two problems:
- each time the custom commands panel was opened, the history of commands would
be shown in reversed order compared to last time. (The reason is that
lo.Reverse modifies the slice in place rather than just returning a new,
reversed slice.)
- when executing a previous command again (either by typing it in again, or by
picking it from the history), it should move to the beginning of the history,
but didn't.
We fix this by storing the history in reversed order (as the user sees it in
the panel), this makes the logic simpler. We just have to prepend rather
than append newly added commands now.
While this is theoretically a breaking change, it's not worth bothering because
the order was wrong for existing users in 50% of the cases anyway.
