runewidth.StringWidth is an expensive call, even if the input string is pure
ASCII. Improve this by providing a wrapper that short-circuits the call to len
if the input is ASCII.
Benchmark results show that for non-ASCII strings it makes no noticable
difference, but for ASCII strings it provides a more than 200x speedup.
BenchmarkStringWidthAsciiOriginal-10 718135 1637 ns/op
BenchmarkStringWidthAsciiOptimized-10 159197538 7.545 ns/op
BenchmarkStringWidthNonAsciiOriginal-10 486290 2391 ns/op
BenchmarkStringWidthNonAsciiOptimized-10 502286 2383 ns/op
In go 1.22, loop variables are redeclared with each iteration of the
loop, rather than simple updated on each iteration. This means that we
no longer need to manually redeclare variables when they're closed over
by a function.
The rebase.updateRefs feature of git is very useful to rebase a stack of
branches and keep everything nicely stacked; however, it is usually in the way
when you make a copy of a branch and want to rebase it "away" from the original
branch in some way or other. For example, the original branch might sit on main,
and you want to rebase the copy onto devel to see if things still compile there.
Or you want to do some heavy history rewriting experiments on the copy, but keep
the original branch in case the experiments fail. Or you want to split a branch
in two because it contains two unrelated sets of changes; so you make a copy,
and drop half of the commits from the copy, then check out the original branch
and drop the other half of the commits from it.
In all these cases, git's updateRefs feature insists on moving the original
branch along with the copy in the first rebase that you make on the copy. I
think this is a bug in git, it should create update-ref todos only for branches
that point into the middle of your branch (because only then do they form a
stack), not when they point at the head (because then it's a copy). I had a long
discussion about this on the git mailing list [1], but people either don't agree
or don't care enough.
So we fix this on our side: whenever we start a rebase for whatever reason, be
it interactive, non-interactive, or behind-the-scenes, we drop any update-ref
todos that are at the very top of the todo list, which fixes all the
above-mentioned scenarios nicely.
I will admit that there's one scenario where git's behavior is the desired one,
and the fix in this PR makes it worse: when you create a new branch off of an
existing one, with the intention of creating a stack of branches, but before you
make the first commit on the new branch you realize some problem with the first
branch (e.g. a commit that needs to be reworded or dropped). It this case you do
want both branches to be affected by the change. In my experience this scenario
is much rarer than the other ones that I described above, and it's also much
easier to recover from: just check out the other branch again and hard-reset it
to the rebased one.
[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/354f9fed-567f-42c8-9da9-148a5e223022@haller-berlin.de/
Sometimes it takes a while to get PRs accepted upstream, and this blocks our
progress. Since I'm pretty much the only one making changes there anyway, it
makes sense to point to my fork directly.
We upgraded our minimum Go version to 1.21 in commit
57ac9c2189. We can now replace our
`utils.Min` and `utils.Max` functions with the built-in `min` and `max`.
Reference: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Min_and_max
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
It is a bad idea to read a git-rebase-todo file, remove some update-ref todos,
and write it back out behind git's back. This will cause git to actually remove
the branches referenced by those update-ref todos when the rebase is continued.
The reason is that git remembers the refs affected by update-ref todos at the
beginning of the rebase, and remembers information about them in the file
.git/rebase-merge/update-refs. Then, whenever the user performs a "git rebase
--edit-todo" command, it updates that file based on whether update-ref todos
were added or removed by that edit. If we rewrite the git-rebase-todo file
behind git's back, this updating doesn't happen.
Fix this by not updating the git-rebase-todo file directly in this case, but
performing a "git rebase --edit-todo" command where we set ourselves as the
editor and change the file in there. This makes git update the bookkeeping
information properly.
Ideally we would use this method for all cases where we change the
git-rebase-todo file (e.g. moving todos up/down, or changing the type of a
todo); this would be cleaner because we wouldn't mess with git's private
implementation details. I tried this, but unfortunately it isn't fast enough.
Right now, moving a todo up or down takes between 1 and 2ms on my machine;
changing it to do a "git rebase --edit-todo" slows it down to over 100ms, which
is unacceptable.
By default we now search for substrings; you can search for multiple substrings
by separating them with spaces. Add a config option gui.filterMode that can be
set to 'fuzzy' to switch back to the previous behavior.
It sorts them already, so it's unnecessary. In the next commit we use this same
code for substring searching too, and in that case we don't want to sort because
sorting is by Score, but we don't even fill in the score for substring
searching.
As part of this, you must now press enter on a merge conflict file
to focus the merge view; you can no longer press space and if you do
it will raise an error.
This adds range select ability in two ways:
1) Sticky: like what we already have with the staging view i.e. press v then use arrow keys
2) Non-sticky: where you just use shift+up/down to expand the range
The state machine works like this:
(no range, press 'v') -> sticky range
(no range, press arrow) -> no range
(no range, press shift+arrow) -> nonsticky range
(sticky range, press 'v') -> no range
(sticky range, press arrow) -> sticky range
(sticky range, press shift+arrow) -> nonsticky range
(nonsticky range, press 'v') -> no range
(nonsticky range, press arrow) -> no range
(nonsticky range, press shift+arrow) -> nonsticky range
We will pass these positions back to clients for rendering non-model items, and
it's important that clients can consistently rely on them no matter which
columns were removed.
