Unfortunately it isn't possible to delete them. This would often be useful, but
our todo rewriting mechanisms rely on being able to find todos by some
identifier (hash for pick, ref for update-ref), and exec todos don't have a
unique identifier.
If exactly one candidate from inside the current branch is found, we return that
one even if there are also hunks belonging to master commits; we disregard those
in this case.
Copy the slice into a variable and use that throughout the whole operation; this
makes us a little more robust against the model refreshing concurrently.
It has two modified hunks, one for a master commit and one for a branch commit.
Currently we get an error mentioning those two commits, but we would like to
silently select the branch commit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It can optionally be used to set the title of the panel that shows the output of
a command (when showOutput is true). If left unset, the command string is used
as the title.
