We've seen a lot of issues recently where people complain that lazygit doesn't
behave as documented, but that was only because they were running the latest
release but were looking at the documentation of master. Make the documentation
links in the status panel point to the release that they are using in the hope
that this will help a little bit with this problem.
Some operations don't support switching to the editor from the commit message
panel; an example is the commit message panel that appears when moving a custom
patch into a new commit. Disable the "open in editor" menu entry in this case,
instead of silently doing nothing.
Previously we would hide it if no onSwitchToEditor function was set; that was
from a time when <c-o> was bound directly to the switch-to-editor command. Now
it is bound to showing a menu, and that menu is always available even if no
onSwitchToEditor function is set. (We rather need to disable the switch to
editor item _within_ that menu, see next commit.)
For die-hard fuzzy-searching fans it's probably in the way, so taking it out
makes fuzzy filtering work better. For substring filtering it always retains the
sort order anyway.
By default we now search for substrings; you can search for multiple substrings
by separating them with spaces. Add a config option gui.filterMode that can be
set to 'fuzzy' to switch back to the previous behavior.
Lazygit has two ways to decide whether it needs to ask the user to force-push:
1. if it knows ahead of time that the push will fail because the branch has
diverged, by looking at the incoming/outgoing information that it shows as ↑3↓7.
2. by examining the error that comes back when the push has failed.
The second situation should happen only rarely, because lazygit fetches every
minute by default, so the ↑3↓7 information is usually up to date. It might not
be if the user turned off auto-fetch (or increased the auto-fetch interval).
However, in this case it's almost always harmful to prompt the user to
force-push, because we know that the reason for diverging is that something was
pushed to the remote, and we would wipe it out by force-pushing. In such a
situation, the more likely user action is to pull the remote changes and then
push normally again.
So just remove the second prompt, and replace it by a better error message when
we detect that updates were rejected remotely.
A little bit of history archeology reveals that the second prompt was added at a
time where we didn't have the first one yet, so at that time it made sense to
have it; but when the first prompt was added, we should have removed the second.
So far, the only situation where we called SetSelectionRangeAndMode was one
where the range could only get larger (in startInteractiveRebaseWithEdit, in
which case update-ref todos can be inserted by the rebase). However, in the last
commit we introduced a new call site where the range can get smaller, including
being reduced to a single item. Since this is indistinguishable from a single
selection, set the mode to none in this case; without this, hitting escape would
seemingly do nothing because it collapses the empty range selection.
... and when recalling a commit message from an old commit by pressing up-arrow.
This is necessary because committing turns our soft line breaks into real ones,
but when rewording we want to turn them back into soft ones again, so that it's
possible to insert words at the beginning of a paragraph and have everything
rewrap nicely.
This is only a best effort; the algorithm only removes those hard line breaks
that can be removed without changing the way the message looks. This works well
when the previous commit message was wrapped at the same width, which for most
users should be the most common case; but if it wasn't, the result is not great.
Specifically, if the old wrap width was smaller, some hard line breaks just
won't be removed; if it was wider though, you'll get an unpleasant comb effect
with alternating long and short lines. In such a case it's best to switch to the
editor and use whatever wrapping features you have there (e.g. alt-Q).
This should arguably have been done in b133318b40 already; it's becoming more
important now because we're going to extend the common code with more logic in
the next commit.
It starts a rebase on the bottom-most commit of the range, and sets all the
selected commits to "edit" (skipping merge commits, because they can't be
edited).
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.
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.
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.
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.
