1
0
mirror of https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit.git synced 2025-01-10 04:07:18 +02:00
Commit Graph

431 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jesse Duffield
d08fafb1c4 Clear range select upon pressing 'escape'
This is the highest priority of the escape actions because it's the thing you're
most likely to want to do upon hitting escape if you have a range selected.

Applying this to the staging/patch-building views is tricky: if we want this logic
for when a range of lines is selected, we'll also need to apply it when a hunk
is selected too. I still think it's worth it though: I've often accidentally
escaped from the staging view when trying to cancel a range selection.
2024-01-19 10:47:21 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
f3eb180f75 Standardise display of range selection across views
We're not fully standardising here: different contexts can store their range state however
they like. What we are standardising on is that now the view is always responsible for
highlighting the selected lines, meaning the context/controller needs to tell the view
where the range start is.

Two convenient benefits from this change:
1) we no longer need bespoke code in integration tests for asserting on selected lines because
we can just ask the view
2) line selection in staging/patch-building/merge-conflicts views now look the same as in
list views i.e. the highlight applies to the whole line (including trailing space)

I also noticed a bug with merge conflicts not rendering the selection on focus though I suspect
it wasn't a bug with any real consequences when the view wasn't displaying the selection.

I'm going to scrap the selectedRangeBgColor config and just let it use the single line
background color. Hopefully nobody cares, but there's really no need for an extra config.
2024-01-19 10:47:21 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
24a4302c52 Add range selection ability on list contexts
This adds range select ability in two ways:
1) Sticky: like what we already have with the staging view i.e. press v then use arrow keys
2) Non-sticky: where you just use shift+up/down to expand the range

The state machine works like this:
(no range, press 'v') -> sticky range
(no range, press arrow) -> no range
(no range, press shift+arrow) -> nonsticky range
(sticky range, press 'v') -> no range
(sticky range, press arrow) -> sticky range
(sticky range, press shift+arrow) -> nonsticky range
(nonsticky range, press 'v') -> no range
(nonsticky range, press arrow) -> no range
(nonsticky range, press shift+arrow) -> nonsticky range
2024-01-19 10:47:21 +11:00
Stefan Haller
83337d9fa8 Allow showing Disabled errors as error panel instead of toast 2024-01-14 17:45:35 +01:00
Stefan Haller
09a24ee97d Use ErrorToast instead of error panel when invoking a disabled command 2024-01-14 17:45:35 +01:00
Stefan Haller
8ca8a43968 Make it mandatory to acknowledge toasts in tests 2024-01-14 17:42:03 +01:00
Stefan Haller
9fa43394fe Make it possible to handle toasts in integration tests
Use it in two selected tests to demonstrate what it looks like.
2024-01-14 17:42:03 +01:00
Jesse Duffield
53a8bd2e3f Add ability to start an interactive rebase onto an appropriate base
A common issue I have is that I want to move a commit from the top of my branch
all the way down to the first commit on the branch. To do that, I need to navigate
down to the first commit on my branch, press 'e' to start an interactive rebase,
then navigate back up to the top of the branch, then move my commit back down to
the base. This is annoying.

Similarly annoying is moving the commit one-by-one without explicitly starting
an interactive rebase, because then each individual step is its own rebase which
takes a while in aggregate.

This PR allows you to press 'i' from the commits view to start an interactive
rebase from an 'appropriate' base. By appropriate, we mean that we want to start
from the HEAD and stop when we reach the first merge commit or commit on the main
branch. This may end up including more commits than you need, but it doesn't make
a difference.
2024-01-13 12:57:49 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
a1ce6029c1 Pass -f as single arg in integration test
For some bizarre reason `pkg/integration/tests/filter_by_path/cli_arg.go` is failing as of 8c716184 like so:

```
test_lazygit

  Usage:
    test_lazygit [git-arg]

  Positional Variables:
    git-arg   Panel to focus upon opening lazygit. Accepted values (based on git terminology): status, branch, log, stash. Ignored if --filter arg is passed.
  Flags:
    -h --help               Displays help with available flag, subcommand, and positional value parameters.
    -p --path               Path of git repo. (equivalent to --work-tree=<path> --git-dir=<path>/.git/)
    -f --filter             Path to filter on in `git log -- <path>`. When in filter mode, the commits, reflog, and stash are filtered based on the given path, and some operations are restricted
    -v --version            Print the current version
    -d --debug              Run in debug mode with logging (see --logs flag below). Use the LOG_LEVEL env var to set the log level (debug/info/warn/error) (default: false)
    -l --logs               Tail lazygit logs (intended to be used when `lazygit --debug` is called in a separate terminal tab)
    -c --config             Print the default config
    -cd --print-config-dir   Print the config directory
    -ucd --use-config-dir     override default config directory with provided directory
    -w --work-tree          equivalent of the --work-tree git argument
    -g --git-dir            equivalent of the --git-dir git argument
    -ucf --use-config-file    Comma separated list to custom config file(s)

Unknown arguments supplied:  filterFile
```

where the CLI args are:
```
([]string) (len=5 cap=5) {
 (string) (len=25) "/tmp/lazygit/test_lazygit",
 (string) (len=6) "-debug",
 (string) (len=108) "--use-config-dir=/Users/jesseduffieldduffield/repos/lazygit/test/_results/filter_by_path/cli_arg/used_config",
 (string) (len=2) "-f",
 (string) (len=10) "filterFile"
}
```

This appears to be a bug in flaggy itself. I've updated to the latest version but it still breaks. Bizarrely it works fine on CI and
only fails locally. Running lazygit locally with `lg -f pkg/gui/controllers/helpers/refresh_helper.go` it works fine. So I don't
know what's going on there. At any rate, I'm just going to get the test passing by passing `-f=filterFile` as a single argument.
2024-01-12 20:19:50 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
8c716184c1 Set working directory in lazygit test command
We need to fetch our list of tests both outside of our test binary and within. We need
to get the list from within so that we can run the code that drives the test and runs
assertions. To get the list of tests we need to know where the root of the lazygit repo
is, given that the tests live in files under that root.

So far, we've used this GetLazyRootDirectory() function for that, but it assumes that
we're not in a test directory (it just looks for the first .git dir it can find). Because
we didn't want to properly fix this before, we've been setting the working directory of
the test command to the lazygit root, and using the --path CLI arg to override it when
the test itself ran. This was a terrible hack.

Now, we're passing the lazygit root directory as an env var to the integration test, so
that we can set the working directory to the actual path of the test repo; removing the
need to use the --path arg.
2024-01-12 19:59:31 +11:00
Stefan Haller
6255728e63 Add a method GitVersion.IsAtLeast 2024-01-10 09:18:38 +01:00
Stefan Haller
b35f8776e1 Warn when there are hunks with only added lines
The algorithm works by blaming the deleted lines, so if a hunk contains only
added lines, we can only hope that it also belongs in the same commit. Warn the
user about this.

Note: the warning might be overly agressive, we'll have to see if this is
annoying. The reason is that it depends on the diff context size whether added
lines go into their own hunk or are grouped together with other added or deleted
lines into one hunk. However, our algorithm uses a diff context size of 0,
because that makes it easiest to parse the diff; this results in hunks having
only added lines more often than what the user sees. For example, moving a line
of code down by two lines will likely result in a single hunk for the user, but
in two hunks for our algorithm. On the other hand, being this strict makes the
warning consistent. We could consider using the user's diff context size in the
algorithm, but then it would depend on the current context size whether the
warning appears, which could be confusing. Plus, it would make the algorithm
quite a bit more complicated.
2024-01-10 09:11:40 +01:00
Stefan Haller
8ca78412ac Add command to find base commit for creating a fixup 2024-01-10 09:11:40 +01:00
Stefan Haller
cd50c79ae4 Preserve the commit message correctly even if the description has blank lines
There are two possible fixes for this bug, and they differ in behavior when
rewording a commit. The one I chose here always splits at the first line feed,
which means that for an improperly formatted commit message such as this one:

   This is a very long multi-line subject,
   which you shouldn't really use in git.

   And this is the body (we call it "description" in lazygit).

we split after the first line instead of after the first paragraph. This is
arguably not what the original author meant, but splitting after the first
paragraph doesn't really work well in lazygit, because we would try to put both
lines into the one-line subject field of the message panel, and you'd only see
the second and not even know that there are more.

The other potential fix would have been to join subject and description with two
line feeds instead of one in JoinCommitMessageAndDescription; this would have
fixed our bug in the same way, but would result in splitting the above message
after the second line instead of the first. I think that's worse, so I decided
for the first fix.

While we're at it, simplify the code a little bit; strings.Cut is documented to
return (s, "") when the separator is not found, so there's no need to do this on
our side.

We do have to trim spaces on the description now, to support the regular reword
case where subject and body are separated by a blank line.
2024-01-09 14:31:53 +01:00
Stefan Haller
3ebba5f32c Add test demonstrating a bug with preserving the commit message
SplitCommitMessageAndDescription splits at the first '\n\n' that it finds (if
there is one), which in this case is between the two paragraphs of the
description. This is wrong.
2024-01-09 14:31:53 +01:00
Stefan Haller
9a423c388d Remove unused function
I think this is a left-over from before we had the new commit message panel. It
no longer makes sense to add a newline to the commit subject.
2024-01-09 14:31:53 +01:00
Stefan Haller
f244ec8251 Fix checking out a tag when a branch with the same name exists 2024-01-09 14:18:35 +01:00
Stefan Haller
2b97f0fb43 Add test demonstrating the problem
When there's a branch with the same name as the tag, the branch gets checked out
instead of the tag.
2024-01-09 14:18:35 +01:00
Alex March
21334fa889 Add integration test for local branch sort order 2023-12-27 15:25:29 +01:00
AzraelSec
bc330b8ff3 feat: add age on stash lines 2023-12-27 11:21:49 +01:00
Stefan Haller
1e3935cbaf Add integration test for remote branch sort order 2023-12-22 16:30:20 +09:00
AzraelSec
c7012528fc feat: introduce a copy menu into the file view 2023-12-07 08:30:03 +01:00
Jesse Duffield
2162e5ff64
Re-enable 'Unset upstream' option when upstream branch is missing (#3086) 2023-12-06 15:58:11 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
dee1ff007d
fixed typo in test description (#3101) 2023-12-02 09:37:49 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
aaecd6cc40 Add coverage arg for integration tests
This PR captures the code coverage from our unit and integration tests. At the
moment it simply pushes the result to Codacy, a platform that assists with
improving code health. Right now the focus is just getting visibility but I want
to experiment with alerts on PRs when a PR causes a drop in code coverage.

To be clear: I'm not a dogmatist about this: I have no aspirations to get to
100% code coverage, and I don't consider lines-of-code-covered to be a perfect
metric, but it is a pretty good heuristic for how extensive your tests are.

The good news is that our coverage is actually pretty good which was a surprise
to me!

As a conflict of interest statement: I'm in Codacy's 'Pioneers' program which
provides funding and mentorship, and part of the arrangement is to use Codacy's
tooling on lazygit. This is something I'd have been happy to explore even
without being part of the program, and just like with any other static analysis
tool, we can tweak it to fit our use case and values.

## How we're capturing code coverage

This deserves its own section. Basically when you build the lazygit binary you
can specify that you want the binary to capture coverage information when it
runs. Then, if you run the binary with a GOCOVERDIR env var, it will write
coverage information to that directory before exiting.

It's a similar story with unit tests except with those you just specify the
directory inline via `-test.gocoverdir`.

We run both unit tests and integration tests separately in CI, _and_ we run them
parallel with different OS's and git versions. So I've got each step uploading
the coverage files as an artefact, and then in a separate step we combine all
the artefacts together and generate a combined coverage file, which we then
upload to codacy (but in future we can do other things with it like warn in a PR
if code coverage decreases too much).

Another caveat is that when running integration tests, not only do we want to
obtain code coverage from code executed by the test binary, we also want to
obtain code coverage from code executed by the test runner. Otherwise, for each
integration test you add, the setup code (which is run by the test runner, not
the test binary) will be considered un-covered and for a large setup step it may
appear that your PR _decreases_ coverage on net. Go doesn't easily let you
exclude directories from coverage reports so it's better to just track the
coverage from both the runner and the binary.

The binary expects a GOCOVERDIR env var but the test runner expects a
test.gocoverdir positional arg and if you pass the positional arg it will
internally overwrite GOCOVERDIR to some random temp directory and if you then
pass that to the test binary, it doesn't seem to actually write to it by the
time the test finishes. So to get around that we're using LAZYGIT_GOCOVERDIR and
then within the test runner we're mapping that to GOCOVERDIR before running the
test binary. So they both end up writing to the same directory. Coverage data
files are named to avoid conflicts, including something unique to the process,
so we don't need to worry about name collisions between the test runner and the
test binary's coverage files. We then merge the files together purely for the
sake of having fewer artefacts to upload.

## Misc

Initially I was able to have all the instances of '/tmp/code_coverage' confined
to the ci.yml which was good because it was all in one place but now it's spread
across ci.yml and scripts/run_integration_tests.sh and I don't feel great about
that but can't think of a way to make it cleaner.

I believe there's a use case for running scripts/run_integration_tests.sh
outside of CI (so that you can run tests against older git versions locally) so
I've made it that unless you pass the LAZYGIT_GOCOVERDIR env var to that script,
it skips all the code coverage stuff.

On a separate note: it seems that Go's coverage report is based on percentage of
statements executed, whereas codacy cares more about lines of code executed, so
codacy reports a higher percentage (e.g. 82%) than Go's own coverage report
(74%).
2023-11-30 12:58:41 +11:00
Jesse Duffield
7e5f25e415 Use args struct for RunTests
There were too many position arguments
2023-11-29 11:39:10 +11:00
Luka Markušić
d145e818d0 Fix unsetting upstream when it doesn't exist 2023-11-04 23:46:27 +01:00
Luka Markušić
e0fc8fe25b Introduce failing "UnsetUpstream" test 2023-11-04 23:45:21 +01:00
Luka Markušić
bb705d91a4 Rename integration test "ResetUpstream"
We are unsetting upstream in it, not resetting to upstream
2023-11-04 23:18:38 +01:00
schuebel
738fa286b2
fixed typo in test description 2023-10-30 14:17:34 +01:00
Stefan Haller
9e37ae3f5d Make the window a little wider for headless integration tests
100 was an unrealistically narrow width; make it a little wider so that we will
have to truncate things less often.
2023-10-16 09:03:07 +02:00
Stefan Haller
b5ca6a3add When refreshing models, re-apply active filter for the corresponding view 2023-10-10 08:37:30 +02:00
Stefan Haller
787f9966ec Fix crash when trying to filter the list of remotes
This seems to be a left-over from an earlier iteration of the code. Removing it
fixes the crash.
2023-10-10 08:33:18 +02:00
Karim Khaleel
421c6565f9 Update wording in disable keybindings test
Co-authored-by: Jesse Duffield <jessedduffield@gmail.com>
2023-10-10 08:38:15 +03:00
Karim Khaleel
d02deeefd8 Add disabled compat for user config (#2833)
Treat <disabled> setting as equivalent to "null"
in keybindings user configs.
2023-10-09 22:34:50 +03:00
Stefan Haller
18d8b29461 Make test_list_generator.go print what it's doing
It's confusing if the cheatsheet generator prints output but this one doesn't.
2023-09-29 20:40:15 +02:00
Stefan Haller
92e107f52d Use constant for WAIT_FOR_DEBUGGER env var 2023-09-28 10:03:53 +02:00
Stefan Haller
2f6a87df98 Build lazygit without optimizations and inlining when debugging
This makes the debugging experience better.
2023-09-28 10:03:53 +02:00
Stefan Haller
59cc6843e6 Print race detector logs after running a test with -race 2023-09-25 09:09:41 +02:00
Stefan Haller
f108fd2236 Support -race arg when running integration tests to turn on go's race detector
For the "cli" and "tui" modes of the test runner there's a "-race" parameter to
turn it on; for running tests on CI with go test, you turn it on by setting the
environment variable LAZYGIT_RACE_DETECTOR to a non-empty value.
2023-09-25 09:09:41 +02:00
Stefan Haller
26d180a50a Fix minor resource leak in runCmdHeadless
We still want to close the pty if the command failed.
2023-09-25 09:09:41 +02:00
Jesse Duffield
c74448f00d Don't select current search result when showing search status
Previously there was no way to render a view's search status without also moving the cursor
to the current search match. This caused issues where we wanted to display the status
after leaving the view and coming back, or when beginning a new search from within the
view.

This commit separates the two use cases so we only move the cursor when we're actually
selecting the next search match
2023-09-25 16:37:59 +10:00
Jesse Duffield
41ab7c44a0
Use upstream branch when opening pull requests (#2693)
- **PR Description**

Should probably solve #2691

- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**

* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go run scripts/cheatsheet/main.go
generate`)
* [x] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [x] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
2023-09-25 11:03:15 +10:00
AzraelSec
ea93df571d feat: add a menu to rebase current branch to a target branch upstream 2023-09-24 20:13:59 +02:00
Stefan Haller
4c5e250ed8 Add integration test for deleting a remote branch with credentials prompt
This test is interesting because it shows a credentials prompt inside a
WithWaitingStatus. Prior to this branch this test would have hung forever.
2023-09-20 13:29:30 +02:00
Jesse Duffield
276438b601
Add history for search view (#2877) 2023-09-20 16:09:53 +10:00
Karim Khaleel
edec116ceb Add search history
Add search history for filterable and searchable views.
2023-09-20 08:35:41 +03:00
Stefan Haller
a642395e9f Allow cherry-picking commits during a rebase
This can be useful when you know that a cherry-picked commit would conflict at
the tip of your branch, but doesn't at the beginning of the branch (or
somewhere in the middle). In that case you want to be able to edit the commit
before where you want to insert the cherry-picked commits, and then paste to
insert them into the todo list at that point.
2023-09-18 10:50:19 +02:00
Stefan Haller
f2f50ccf75 Use DisabledReason for upstream options items 2023-09-18 10:15:11 +02:00
Luka Markušić
4d258bd981 Use UpstreamBranch for opening pull requests 2023-09-18 13:40:52 +10:00