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.
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%).
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.
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
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.
This prevents commands like "go test ./..." from looking into it, and it
prevents VS Code's Problems panel from showing errors about the go files in that
folder.
Add co-author to commits
Add addCoAuthor command for commits
- Implement the `addCoAuthor` command to add co-authors to commits.
- Utilize suggestions helpers to populate author names from the suggestions list.
- Added command to gui at `LocalCommitsController`.
This commit introduces the `addCoAuthor` command, which allows users to easily add co-authors to their commits. The co-author names are populated from the suggestions list, minimizing the chances of user input errors. The co-authors are added using the Co-authored-by metadata format recognized by GitHub and GitLab.
This should already have been done when adding the "View divergence from
upstream" command, but now we're going to add yet another item to the menu that
is unrelated to setting or unsetting the upstream.
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.
