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 682db77401 (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.
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.
- **PR Description**
This fixes two loosely related problems with `update-ref` todos:
1. Panic when hitting enter on an `update-ref` item
2. When selecting an `update-ref` item and then triggering a refresh,
there was a bogus error message `fatal: ambiguous argument '': unknown
revision or path not in the working tree.`
Scenario:
- show the files of a commit, escape out of it again
- start an interactive rebase of a stack of branches, with the rebase.updateRefs
git config set to true
- select one of the update-ref todos
- trigger a refresh (either manually or by bringing lazygit's terminal window to
the front)
This results in an error message "fatal: ambiguous argument '': unknown revision
or path not in the working tree."
Fix this by putting another band-aid on the check for the commit files refresh.
This is the easiest way to fix the problem, but I don't think it's the best one.
We shouldn't be refreshing the commit files context at all if it isn't visible,
because it's pointless; there's no way to switch to it again except by calling
viewFiles again with a specific ref. But I'm too lazy too figure out how to do
that right now.
Cherry-picking merge commits is currently not supported because of the
way copy/pasting is currently implemented. Disable the command with a
proper error message if the user tries to copy a merge commit, instead
of running into the confusing error message that git would otherwise
give, see #1374.
While we're at it, disable it also when trying to copy an "update-ref"
todo, which doesn't make sense.
It can be tedious after each cherry-pick opearation to clear the
selection by pressing escape in order for lazygit to stop displaying
info about copied commits. Also, it seems to be a rare case to
cherry-pick commits to more than one destination.
The simplest solution to address this issue is to clear the selection
upon paste, including merge conflict scenario.
Previously discussed in #3198.
Add command to squash all fixups in the current branch.
To do that, change the "Apply fixup commits" command to show a menu with
the two choices "in current branch" and "above the selected commit"; we
make "in current branch" the default, as it's the more useful one most
of the time, even though it is a breaking change for those who are used
to "shift-S enter" meaning "squash above selected".
Fixes#3263.
To do that, change the "Apply fixup commits" command to show a menu with the two
choices "in current branch" and "above the selected commit"; we make "in current
branch" the default, as it's the more useful one most of the time, even though
it is a breaking change for those who are used to "shift-S enter" meaning
"squash above selected".
This is useful if you want to move a range of commits, so you select
them, and then realize it's better to do it in an interactive rebase. Pressing 'i'
preserves the range now.
This is useful if you want to move a range of commits, so you select them, and
then realize it's better to do it in an interactive rebase. Pressing 'i'
preserves the range now.
When fetching a remote in the remotes tab, show the status inline (i.e.
in the list row of the remote), like we do when fast-forwarding a branch
in the branches panel.
- **PR Description**
This helps work around bugs in editors that may get confused about
relative paths (like nvim-remote, see
https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/18519), and shouldn't have any
negative effect on others.
This helps work around bugs in editors that may get confused about relative
paths (like nvim-remote, see https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/18519), and
shouldn't have any negative effect on others.
- **PR Description**
I prefer this because I almost never use sticky range selections, but
I'm not sure everybody agrees. Also, this fixes the issue that just
clicking a line in a diff (without dragging) already creates a range
selection. It still does, technically, but it's no longer a problem
because a non-sticky one-line range selection behaves the same as a
non-range selection.
See #3233.
I prefer this because I almost never use sticky range selections. Also, this
fixes the issue that just clicking a line in a diff (without dragging) already
creates a range selection. It still does, technically, but it's no longer a
problem because a non-sticky one-line range selection behaves the same as a
non-range selection.
- **PR Description**
Now that branches can be sorted by date, there's a new situation that we
didn't have before: when fetching a branch, its committer date can
change, so it will move up in the list; we need to update the selection
index to follow. This is important for the case that master is behind
its upstream and you want to rebase your checked-out branch onto master:
in that case you would select master, press "f" to fetch, and then press
"r" to rebase onto it. It's very bad if master doesn't stay selected
after fetching.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [x] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `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)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [ ] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
<!--
Be sure to name your PR with an imperative e.g. 'Add worktrees view'
see https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/releases/tag/v0.40.0 for
examples
-->
This wasn't necessary before, because the only available branch sorting option
was by recency, so the sort order couldn't change except by checking out
branches. Now, you can sort by committer date, so the branch order can change by
fetching; in this case it's important to keep the same branch selected. One
important use case is to rebase the checked-out branch onto master; you select
master, press "f" to fetch it (this can now change its position in the list),
and then press "r" to rebase. To make this work smoothly it's important to keep
master selected after pressing "f".
Git has a bug [1] whereby running multiple fetch commands at the same time
causes all of them to append their information to the .git/FETCH_HEAD file,
causing the next git pull that wants to use the information to become confused,
and show an error like "Cannot rebase onto multiple branches". This error would
occur when pressing "f" and "p" in quick succession in the files panel, but also
when pressing "p" while a background fetch happens to be running. One likely
situation for this is pressing "p" right after startup.
Since lazygit never uses the information written to .git/FETCH_HEAD, it's best
to avoid writing to it, which fixes the scenarios described above.
However, it doesn't fix the problem of repeatedly pressing "f" quickly on the
checked-out branch; since we call "git pull" in that case, the above fix doesn't
help there. We'll address this separately in another PR.
[1] See https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqy1daffk8.fsf@gitster.g/ for more
information.
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.
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.
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.
Use git log instead of git rev-list, this way we don't get a line "commit <sha>"
at the beginning that we then have to discard again.
The test TestGetCommitMsg is becoming a bit pointless now, since it just
compares that input and output are identical.
Stefan Haller
