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.
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.
- **PR Description**
Allow deleting and editing custom command history items. Deleting is
done by hitting `d` on a suggestion; editing is done by hitting `e`,
which fills the selected item into the command prompt for further
editing.
Closes#2528.
For custom commands it is useful to select an earlier command and have it copied
to the prompt for further editing. This can be done by hitting 'e' now.
For other types of suggestion panels we don't enable this behavior, as you can't
create arbitrary new items there that don't already exist as a suggestion.
In the custom commands panel you can now tab to the suggestions and hit 'd' to
delete items from there. Useful if you mistyped a command and don't want it to
appear in your history any more.
- If _not_ inside a neovim session, treat as
a normal nvim session and suspend lazygit.
- If inside a neovim session:
- Do not try to suspend lazygit.
- Send `q` keystroke to neovim session to quit lazygit.
- Send filename/line/etc. to neovim session.
- **PR Description**
Codacy's coverage report feature requires the use of a secret key, which
is only available on the main repo and is not available on forks. So,
the step has been always failing on any forks. This commit ensures that
we only run it on non-forks.
This greatly diminishes the value of the coverage reports. I've talked
to one of the Codacy people and advised that they should just have an
API key for coverage reports which is not a secret, like what bugsnag
does.
I've disabled the gate in codacy meaning if the coverage ever drops
beneath some percentage, the job won't fail. It wouldn't make sense to
fail the job if some other PR from a fork was responsible for reducing
the coverage percentage beneath some threshold.
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements**
* [ ] Cheatsheets are up-to-date (run `go generate ./...`)
* [ ] Code has been formatted (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-formatting))
* [ ] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [ ] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [ ] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
<!--
Be sure to name your PR with an imperative e.g. 'Add worktrees view'
see https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/releases/tag/v0.40.0 for
examples
-->
Codacy's coverage report feature requires the use of a secret key, which
is only available on the main repo and is not available on forks. So,
the step has been always failing on any forks. This commit ensures that
we only run it on non-forks.
This greatly diminishes the value of the coverage reports. I've talked
to one of the Codacy people and advised that they should just have an
API key for coverage reports which is not a secret, like what bugsnag
does.
- **PR Description**
This PR fixes a problem with lazygit locking up completely when there's
a commit whose subject line is longer than approximately 65500
characters.
Fixes#3529.
We are going to truncate overly long lines returned from git log, and the most
likely field that is going to make the line too long is the subject; so we must
put it last, otherwise we'd end up with not enough fields to split when it's too
long.
It might not be obvious from the diff what's happening to the mock command
output in the test: it didn't have the divergence field (">") at all, which was
kind of a bug. It didn't matter for these tests though, because we are not
testing the divergence here, and our production code happens to be resilient
against it missing. But now we must add the ">" field before the subject.
Scanners can return errors (e.g. ErrTooLong), and if we don't handle it, the
cmd.Wait() call below will block forever because nobody drains the command's
output.
This happens for CommitLoader.GetCommits when there's a commit whose subject
line is longer than approx. 65500 characters; in that case, lazygit would lock
up completely. With this fix it remains usable, but the commit list is truncated
before the bad commit, which is not good enough. We'll improve that in the
remaining commits of this branch.
- **PR Description**
Clicking in the status side panel should activate it; also, clicking on
the repo name should bring up the recent repositories menu, and clicking
on the "(rebasing)" text should bring up the rebase options menu. All of
this was broken for a long time, since somewhere around the big
refactoring of March 2023. (The exact commit where it broke is hard to
bisect, since many of the commits in that area either don't compile or
crash at startup...)
I'm fixing this not because I think it's super important functionality
(nobody seems to have missed it for over a year), but because I have to
touch this code in another PR, and noticed that it wasn't working.
- **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)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [ ] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
Deadlock reporting broke in e1ceb6892a (last September); since then, it
was *off* when running debug builds normally, but *on* when debugging an
integration test. Both of which are exactly opposite of what we want.
Deadlock reporting broke in e1ceb6892a; since then, it was *off* when running
debug builds normally, but *on* when debugging an integration test. Both of
which are exactly opposite of what we want.
- **PR Description**
In the "View divergence from upstream" view we have so far disabled the
commit graph because it was too difficult to implement properly. I
really miss it though, so here's a PR that enables it there, too.
For feature branches it is not essential, because these usually don't
contain merges and the graph is a trivial line. However, for the master
branch against its upstream it is useful too see how many PRs were
merged since you last fetched it, and the graph helps a lot with that.
Also, when we implement #3536 it will be very useful there, too.
- **PR Description**
Add a new config option `gui.commitHashLength` to change the length of
the commit hash displayed in commits view.
default:
<img width="472" alt="image"
src="36dced1e-0c74-4dbd-8670-98e17a75d83a">
With config:
```yaml
gui:
commitHashLength: 3
```
<img width="463" alt="image"
src="e8023cd8-f138-4af8-ae0e-3661f80206ca">
- Changes
- Added the user config option to to `pkg/config/user_config.go` and
`schema/config.json`
- documented in `docs/Config.md`
- Changed the code that displays the hash in
`pkg/gui/presentation/commits.go`
---
- **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))
* [ ] Tests have been added/updated (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/pkg/integration/README.md)
for the integration test guide)
* [ ] Text is internationalised (see
[here](https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#internationalisation))
* [x] Docs (specifically `docs/Config.md`) have been updated if
necessary
* [x] You've read through your own file changes for silly mistakes etc
Change `func displayCommit()` so all the individual strings are built first,
then the whole thing `cols` is put together. Before, most strings were built
prior to constructing `cols`, but a few were built inside the `cols`
construction.
- **PR Description**
Support `git.paging.externalDiffCommand` config in diffing mode (i.e.
when showing the diff between two commits using `W`).
Fixes#3518.
- **PR Description**
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/
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.
It was added in 2018 (700f8c7e79), but I don't know for what purpose. It just
took me 15 minutes to figure out why my new file todo.go wasn't added, so I'm
removing this entry as I find it more harmful than helpful.
- **PR Description**
Resolves https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit/issues/3421
The error is "Expected exactly one original SHA, found 0" but the merge
commit hash (`d6a7a04c626e40071133de26ebe8fdd225caa5c0`) is present in
the rebase TODO file.
However, the commit is missed during search because the filter is only
looking for pick commits:
580818e935/pkg/utils/rebase_todo.go (L238)
Checking for merge commits as well fixes the issue.
I believe only pick and merge should be valid here. If already in an
interactive rebase, lazygit only allows amending to the current HEAD
commit. When that happens, this whole interactive rebase logic is
bypassed and lazygit just performs `git commit --amend`:
580818e935/pkg/gui/controllers/local_commits_controller.go (L668)
This is the reason why amending to a HEAD merge commit currently works
whereas non-HEAD does not.
