Missed a spot a couple PR's ago. We had an integration test which caught this but which was skipped due
to index.lock file issues. The test was also broken for other reasons due to it not having been running
for a while, so I've fixed that up too.
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
If a given menu item has an associated keybinding of 'enter', hitting enter won't actually execute
that item unless your cursor is on it. This creates confusion, and so we're going to use a strikethrough
style to communicate that the keybinding is reserved for something else.
The reason for this is that now our labels for navigation keybindings are larger so they
take up more realestate. It's not the kind of thing a user needs to be told anyway,
anybody is going to try out hjkl and the arrow keys when a TUI opens up.
We could map from <up> to the single character up unicode rune but given you can rebind this stuff
I'd rather keep it simple
The only exception is when moving a custom patch for an entire commit to an
earlier commit; in this case the source commit becomes empty, but we want to
keep it, mainly for consistency with moving the patch to a later commit, which
behaves the same.
In all other cases where we rebase, it's confusing when empty commits are kept;
the most common example is rebasing a branch onto master, where master already
contains some of the commits of our branch. In this case we simply want to drop
these.
The option doesn't have any affect in these views, so we don't need to toggle it
here. But the problem was the HandleFocus call at the end: this would activate
the wrong view, so we need to avoid it here.
Show an error if the user tries to turn the option on, to let them know that it
doesn't work here.
It's not possible to reliably stage things into a custom patch when "ignore
whitespace" is on, so always treat it as off here (like we do in the staging
panel).
It looks like this is a regression that was introduced in 8edad826ca.
It defaults to {"master", "main"}, but can be set to whatever branch names
are used as base branches, e.g. {"master", "devel", "v1.0-hotfixes"}. It is
used for color-coding the shas in the commit list, i.e. to decide whether
commits are green or yellow.
Our refresh code may try to push a context. It does this in two places:
1) when all merge conflicts are resolved, we push a 'continue merge?' confirmation context
2) when all conflicts of a given file are resolved and we're in the merge conflicts context,
we push the files context.
Sometimes we push the confirmation context and then push the files context over it, so the user
never sees the confirmation context.
This commit fixes the race condition by adding a check to ensure that we're still in the
merge conflicts panel before we try escaping from it
Previously, when rebasing a branch onto a newer master, all commits from the
previous fork point up to its head were marked red (unpushed), including the
commits that are on master already. While this is technically correct from the
perspective of the current branch's upstream, it's not what most people expect,
intuitively; they want to see where the current branch starts, relative to
master. So all commits of master should be green, and then the commits of the
current branch in red.
I don't see a reason why this restriction to have the selection be always
visible was necessary. Removing it has two benefits:
1. Scrolling a list view doesn't change the selection. A common scenario: you
look at one of the commits of your current branch; you want to see the how
many'th commit this is, but the beginning of the branch is scrolled off the
bottom of the commits panel. You scroll down to find the beginning of your
branch, but this changes the selection and shows a different commit now - not
what you want.
2. It is possible to scroll a panel that is not the current one without changing
the focus to it. That's how windows in other GUIs usually behave.
Enabling the filter selects the first entry in the filtered commits view. It's
useful to have a test that checks this, as I almost broke it in the following
commit (it needs an added FocusLine call in the setFiltering function in
filtering_menu_action.go).
We now refresh the staging panel when doing an unscoped refresh, so that if we commit from the staging panel we escape
back to the files panel if need be. But that causes flickering when doing an unscoped refresh from other contexts,
because the refreshStagingPanel function assumes that the staging panel has focus. So we're adding a guard at the top
of that function to early exit if we don't have focus.
When cycling history, we want to make it so that upon returning to the original prompt, you get your text back.
Importantly, we don't want to use the existing preservedMessage field for that because that's only for preserving
a NEW commit message, and we don't want the history stuff of the commit reword flow to overwrite that.
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.
