This fixes two minor problems with the prompts:
1. When pressing shift-A in the local commits view, it would first prompt
whether to stage all files, and then it would prompt whether to amend the
commit at all. This doesn't make sense, it needs to be the other way round.
2. When pressing shift-A on the head commit in an interactive rebase, we would
ask whether they want to amend the last commit, like when pressing shift-A in
the files view. While this is technically correct, the fact that we're
amending the head commit in this case is just an implementation detail, and
from the user's point of view it's better to use the same prompt as we do for
any other commit.
To fix these, we remove the confirmation panel from AmendHelper.AmendHead() and
instead add it at the two call sites, so that we have more control over this.
When editing a commit, the index of the current commit can change; for example,
when merge commits are involved, or when working with stacked branches where
"update-ref" commands may be added above the selected commit.
Reselect the current commit after pressing "e"; this requires doing the refresh
blocking on the main thread. (Another option that I considered was to use a
SYNC refresh, and then select the new line with an OnUIThread inside the Then
function. This also works, but results in a very visible lag.)
We want to mark all local branch heads with a "*" in the local commits panel, to
make it easier to see how branches are stacked onto each other. In order to not
confuse users with "*" markers that they don't understand, do this only for the
case where users actually use stacked branches; those users are likely not going
to be confused by the display. This means we want to filter out a few branch
heads that shouldn't get the marker: the current branch, any main branch, and
any old branch that has been merged to master already.
This test not only tests the correct handling and display of the updateRef
command, but also the visualization of branch heads in the commits panel. Since
we are about to change the behavior here, extend the test so that a master
commit is added (we don't want this to be visualized as a branch head), and then
a stack of two non-main branches. At the end of this branch we only want to
visualize the head commit of the first.
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.
We have not been good at consistent casing so far. Now we use 'Sentence case' everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Also Removing 'Lc' prefix from i18n field names: the 'Lc' stood for lowercase but now that everything
is in 'Sentence case' there's no need for the distinction.
I've got a couple lower case things I've kept: namely, things that show up in parentheses.
By constructing an arg vector manually, we no longer need to quote arguments
Mandate that args must be passed when building a command
Now you need to provide an args array when building a command.
There are a handful of places where we need to deal with a string,
such as with user-defined custom commands, and for those we now require
that at the callsite they use str.ToArgv to do that. I don't want
to provide a method out of the box for it because I want to discourage its
use.
For some reason we were invoking a command through a shell when amending a
commit, and I don't believe we needed to do that as there was nothing user-
supplied about the command. So I've switched to using a regular command out-
side the shell there
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 fixes two problems with the "amend commit with staged changes" command:
1. Amending to a fixup commit didn't work (this would create a commmit with the
title "fixup! fixup! original title" and keep that at the top of the branch)
2. Unrelated fixup commits would be squashed too.
The added integration test verifies that both of these problems are fixed.
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).
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.
If you ran this test enough times it would eventually fail; this happened
whenever the resulting squashed commit had a sha that happened to start with
"02". We test that "commit 02" does not appear in the diff window, but in that
case it did, at the very top of the window.
A better fix might be to change the commit message that we use in CreateNCommits
to something other than "commit XY", but that would require touching tons of
tests, so this is the easier fix.
It's not so much the total number of commits that matters here, it's just
whether we are on the first one. (This includes the other condition.)
This allows us to get rid of the condition in rebase.go.
