- **PR Description**
In the rebase menu, add a command "Rebase onto base branch". This makes
it more convenient to rebase onto master (or main), because
- you don't need to bring your local version of the base branch up to
date first
- you don't have to remember which of your main branches (e.g. "main",
"devel", or "1.0-hotfixes") your current branch is based on.
This is sitting on top of #3614.
Closes#3546.
- **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)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
Put it into the individual menu items instead.
Again, this is necessary because we are going to add another entry to the menu
that is independent of the selected branch.
Instead, disable the individual entries in the menu.
This is necessary because we are going to add another entry to the menu that is
independent of the selected branch.
- **PR Description**
Add a command similar to the existing "Show divergence from upstream",
but for the base branch instead. Useful to see what you would rebase
onto if you were to rebase onto the base branch now.
It could be considered somewhat questionable that we display both the
Remote and Local sections of the log here; the Local section isn't
really interesting because it's always identical to what you see in the
Commits view. I chose to still show it since it makes the divergence
view look more familiar, and I think overall it makes it clearer what
you're looking at.
This is sitting on top of #3613 and uses some of the code that was added
there.
- **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)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
- **PR Description**
Add a new config option `showDivergenceFromBaseBranch`; if not "none",
it indicates in the branches view for each branch if it has fallen
behind its base branch, and optionally by how much. If set to
"onlyArrow", it will append `↓` after the branch status; if set to
"arrowAndNumber", it appends `↓17`, where the count indicates how many
commits it is behind the base branch. These are colored in blue, and go
after the existing yellow `↓3↑7` indication of divergence from the
upstream.
The option is off by default, since we are afraid that people may find
this too noisy. We may reconsider this choice in the future if the
response is positive.
- **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)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
Previously the entire status was colored in a single color, so the API made
sense. This is going to change in the next commit, so now we must include the
color in the string returned from BranchStatus(), which means that callers who
need to do hit detection or measure the length need to decolorize it.
While we're at it, switch the order of ↑3↓7 to ↓7↑3. For some reason that I
can't really explain I find it more logical this way. The software out there is
pretty undecided about it, it seems: VS Code puts ↓7 first, and so does the
shell prompt that comes with git; git status and git branch -v put "ahead" first
though. Shrug.
It is a valid case for a branch to share no history with any of the main
branches, in which case git merge-base returns an error (and an empty string).
Since we can't distinguish this from one of the main branches having been
deleted, we shouldn't invalidate the cache in that case.
Use Equals instead of Contains for asserting the status view content. This
solves the problem that we might assert Contains("↓2 repo"), but what it really
shows is "↑1↓2 repo", and the test still succeeds. At best this is confusing.
Also, this way we don't have to use the awkward DoesNotContain to check that it
really doesn't show a checkmark.
To do this, we need to fix two whitespace problems:
- there was always a space at the end for no reason. Simply remove it. It was
added in efb51eee96, but from looking at that diff it seems it was added
accidentally.
- there was a space at the beginning if the branch status was empty. This is
actually a cosmetic problem, for branches without a status the text was
indented by once space. Change this so that the space is added conditionally.
It's a bit awkward that we have to use Decolorise here, but this will go away
again later in this branch.
- **PR Description**
Improve the `ctrl-f` command so that it also works when there are no
hunks with deleted lines in the diff. This is very useful, for example,
when a fixup commit adds a comment to a function that was added in the
PR.
Since the exact behavior of the command is getting very complex and hard
to understand, I added a design document that describes what it does,
and also how it differs from git-absorb which does a very similar thing.
- **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)
* [x] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs have been updated if necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
This document explains why we made certain decisions about the behavior of the
command. This is too detailed for users, but could be useful in the future if we
want to discuss further improvements.
We aren't using them, yet, except for deciding whether to show the warning about
hunks with only added lines.
Add a bit of test coverage for parseDiff while we're at it.
- **PR Description**
This fixes three different problems; two were recent regressions, one
has never worked.
1. For branches whose remote is not stored locally, don't ask to force
push right away. Try a normal push first. This broke with #3528.
2. For branches whose remote is not stored locally (but only for those),
if the server rejects the update, ask to force push. This broke with
#3387.
3. When force-pushing a branch whose remote is not stored locally, use
`--force` instead of `--force-with-lease`; otherwise the push would
always fail with a "stale info" error. This has never worked.
Fixes#3588.
This broke with 81b497d186 (#3387). In that PR I claimed that we never want to
ask for force-pushing if the server rejected the update, on the assumption that
this can only happen because the remote tracking branch is not up to date, and
users should just fetch in this case. However, I didn't realize it's even
possible to have a branch whose upstream branch is not stored locally; in this
case we can't tell ahead of time whether a force push is going to be necessary,
so we _have_ to rely on the server response to find out. But we only want to do
that in this specific case, so this is not quite an exact revert of 81b497d186.
This broke with #3528.
If the remote branch is not stored locally, we only see question marks in the
branch status. In this case we can't tell whether we need to force-push, so it's
best to assume that we don't, and see if the server rejects the push, and react
to that by asking to force push. This second part is also broken right now,
we'll fix this in the next commit.
- **PR Description**
When branches are sorted by recency we have this logic that first loads the
branches so that they can be rendered quickly; in parallel, it starts loading
the reflog in the background, and when that's done, it loads the branches again
so that they get their recency values. This means that branches are loaded twice
at startup.
We don't need this logic when branches are not sorted by recency, so we can
simply load branches and reflog in parallel like everything else.
This shouldn't change any user observable behavior, it just avoids doing
unnecessary work at startup.
When branches are sorted by recency we have this logic that first loads the
branches so that they can be rendered quickly; in parallel, it starts loading
the reflog in the background, and when that's done, it loads the branches again
so that they get their recency values. This means that branches are loaded twice
at startup.
We don't need this logic when branches are not sorted by recency, so we can
simply load branches and reflog in parallel like everything else.
This shouldn't change any user observable behavior, it just avoids doing
unnecessary work at startup.
Pin golangci version to 1.58.
It is annoying when CI builds suddenly start to fail because the linter
was updated and finds new things to complain about.
Updating the linter and fixing the code accordingly should be a
dedicated activity.
It is annoying when CI builds suddenly start to fail because the linter was
updated and finds new things to complain about.
Updating the linter and fixing the code accordingly should be a dedicated
activity.
### PR Description
- Fix calculation of tooltip height; for tooltips that are just one or
two characters longer than the available width, the last word would be
cut off. On my screen this happened for the tooltip for the fixup
command.
- Fix tooltip of fixup command.
Fixes#3600.
For tooltips that are just one or two characters longer than the available
width, the last word would be cut off. On my screen this happened for the
tooltip for the fixup command.
