Our refresh code may try to push a context. It does this in two places:
1) when all merge conflicts are resolved, we push a 'continue merge?' confirmation context
2) when all conflicts of a given file are resolved and we're in the merge conflicts context,
we push the files context.
Sometimes we push the confirmation context and then push the files context over it, so the user
never sees the confirmation context.
This commit fixes the race condition by adding a check to ensure that we're still in the
merge conflicts panel before we try escaping from it
I don't see a reason why this restriction to have the selection be always
visible was necessary. Removing it has two benefits:
1. Scrolling a list view doesn't change the selection. A common scenario: you
look at one of the commits of your current branch; you want to see the how
many'th commit this is, but the beginning of the branch is scrolled off the
bottom of the commits panel. You scroll down to find the beginning of your
branch, but this changes the selection and shows a different commit now - not
what you want.
2. It is possible to scroll a panel that is not the current one without changing
the focus to it. That's how windows in other GUIs usually behave.
We now refresh the staging panel when doing an unscoped refresh, so that if we commit from the staging panel we escape
back to the files panel if need be. But that causes flickering when doing an unscoped refresh from other contexts,
because the refreshStagingPanel function assumes that the staging panel has focus. So we're adding a guard at the top
of that function to early exit if we don't have focus.
When cycling history, we want to make it so that upon returning to the original prompt, you get your text back.
Importantly, we don't want to use the existing preservedMessage field for that because that's only for preserving
a NEW commit message, and we don't want the history stuff of the commit reword flow to overwrite that.
When we use the one panel for the entire commit message, its tricky to have a keybinding both for adding a newline and submitting.
By having two panels: one for the summary line and one for the description, we allow for 'enter' to submit the message when done from the summary panel,
and 'enter' to add a newline when done from the description panel. Alt-enter, for those who can use that key combo, also works for submitting the message
from the description panel. For those who can't use that key combo, and don't want to remap the keybinding, they can hit tab to go back to the summary panel
and then 'enter' to submit the message.
We have some awkwardness in that both contexts (i.e. panels) need to appear and disappear in tandem and we don't have a great way of handling that concept,
so we just push both contexts one after the other, and likewise remove both contexts when we escape.
This begins a big refactor of moving more code out of the Gui struct into contexts, controllers, and helpers. We also move some code into structs in the
gui package purely for the sake of better encapsulation
We already show "merge" todo entries when starting an interactive rebase with
--rebase-merges outside of lazygit. Changing the type of a merge entry to "pick"
or "edit" doesn't make sense and shouldn't be allowed. Earlier in this branch we
have started to show "update-ref" entries, these can't be changed either (they
can be moved, though).
You might argue that it should be possible to change them to "drop", but in the
case of "update-ref" this doesn't make sense either, because "drop" needs a Sha
and we don't have one here. Also, you would then be able to later change it back
to "pick", so we would have to remember that this isn't allowed for this
particular drop entry; that's messy, so just disallow all editing.
It used to work on the assumption that rebasing commits in lazygit's model
correspond one-to-one to lines in the git-rebase-todo file, which isn't
necessarily true (e.g. when users use "git rebase --edit-todo" at the custom
command prompt and add a "break" between lines).
The main reason for doing this (besides the reasons given for Status in the
previous commit) is that it allows us to easily convert from TodoCommand to
Action and back. This will be needed later in the branch. Fortunately,
TodoCommand is one-based, so this allows us to add an ActionNone constant with
the value 0.
The "open" command is supposed to behave in the same way as double-clicking a
file in the Finder/Explorer. The concept of jumping to a specific line in the
file doesn't make sense for this; use "edit" instead.
Previously we would have tried to do the rebase, resulting in a long and
somewhat cryptic error message from git; now we check ourselves and show a less
intimidating message.
