To support this, we turn the confirmation prompt of the "Create fixup commit"
command into a menu; creating a fixup commit is the first entry, so that
"shift-F, enter" behaves the same as before. But there are additional entries
for creating "amend!" commits, either with or without file changes. These make
it easy to reword commit messages of existing commits.
We pass all of them to a single editor command, hoping that the editor will be
able to handle multiple files (VS Code and vim do).
We ignore directories that happen to be in the selection range; this makes it
easier to edit multiple files in different folders in tree view. We show an
error if only directories are selected, though.
We've seen a lot of issues recently where people complain that lazygit doesn't
behave as documented, but that was only because they were running the latest
release but were looking at the documentation of master. Make the documentation
links in the status panel point to the release that they are using in the hope
that this will help a little bit with this problem.
Some operations don't support switching to the editor from the commit message
panel; an example is the commit message panel that appears when moving a custom
patch into a new commit. Disable the "open in editor" menu entry in this case,
instead of silently doing nothing.
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.
Lazygit has two ways to decide whether it needs to ask the user to force-push:
1. if it knows ahead of time that the push will fail because the branch has
diverged, by looking at the incoming/outgoing information that it shows as ↑3↓7.
2. by examining the error that comes back when the push has failed.
The second situation should happen only rarely, because lazygit fetches every
minute by default, so the ↑3↓7 information is usually up to date. It might not
be if the user turned off auto-fetch (or increased the auto-fetch interval).
However, in this case it's almost always harmful to prompt the user to
force-push, because we know that the reason for diverging is that something was
pushed to the remote, and we would wipe it out by force-pushing. In such a
situation, the more likely user action is to pull the remote changes and then
push normally again.
So just remove the second prompt, and replace it by a better error message when
we detect that updates were rejected remotely.
A little bit of history archeology reveals that the second prompt was added at a
time where we didn't have the first one yet, so at that time it made sense to
have it; but when the first prompt was added, we should have removed the second.
... and when recalling a commit message from an old commit by pressing up-arrow.
This is necessary because committing turns our soft line breaks into real ones,
but when rewording we want to turn them back into soft ones again, so that it's
possible to insert words at the beginning of a paragraph and have everything
rewrap nicely.
This is only a best effort; the algorithm only removes those hard line breaks
that can be removed without changing the way the message looks. This works well
when the previous commit message was wrapped at the same width, which for most
users should be the most common case; but if it wasn't, the result is not great.
Specifically, if the old wrap width was smaller, some hard line breaks just
won't be removed; if it was wider though, you'll get an unpleasant comb effect
with alternating long and short lines. In such a case it's best to switch to the
editor and use whatever wrapping features you have there (e.g. alt-Q).
This should arguably have been done in b133318b40 already; it's becoming more
important now because we're going to extend the common code with more logic in
the next commit.
It starts a rebase on the bottom-most commit of the range, and sets all the
selected commits to "edit" (skipping merge commits, because they can't be
edited).
A common workflow for me is to create a fixup commit from only some of my
current changes; to do that, I enter a file, stage a few hunks, and then want to
invoke ctrl-f to find the base commit for these changes. Currently I need to esc
back to the files panel in order to do that; it's more convenient to be able to
do this right from the staging panel.
This commit introduces a new feature to the commit view, allowing users
to filter commits based on the author's name or email address. Similar
to the existing path filtering functionality, accessible through <c-s>,
this feature allows users to filter the commit history by the currently
selected commit's author if the commit view is focused, or by typing in
the author's name or email address.
This feature adds an entry to the filtering menu, to provide users with
a familiar and intuitive experience
Calling "git reset" on the command line (without further arguments) defaults to
--mixed, which is reason enough to make it the default for us, too.
But I also find myself using --mixed more often than --soft. The main use case
for me is that I made a bunch of WIP commits, and want to turn them into real
commits when I'm done hacking. I select the last commit before the WIP commits
and reset to it, leaving all changes of all those commits in the working
directory. Since I want to start staging things from there, I prefer those
modifications to be unstaged at that point, which is what --mixed does.
This fixes two problems:
- each time the custom commands panel was opened, the history of commands would
be shown in reversed order compared to last time. (The reason is that
lo.Reverse modifies the slice in place rather than just returning a new,
reversed slice.)
- when executing a previous command again (either by typing it in again, or by
picking it from the history), it should move to the beginning of the history,
but didn't.
We fix this by storing the history in reversed order (as the user sees it in
the panel), this makes the logic simpler. We just have to prepend rather
than append newly added commands now.
While this is theoretically a breaking change, it's not worth bothering because
the order was wrong for existing users in 50% of the cases anyway.
Scenario:
- show the files of a commit, escape out of it again
- start an interactive rebase of a stack of branches, with the rebase.updateRefs
git config set to true
- select one of the update-ref todos
- trigger a refresh (either manually or by bringing lazygit's terminal window to
the front)
This results in an error message "fatal: ambiguous argument '': unknown revision
or path not in the working tree."
Fix this by putting another band-aid on the check for the commit files refresh.
This is the easiest way to fix the problem, but I don't think it's the best one.
We shouldn't be refreshing the commit files context at all if it isn't visible,
because it's pointless; there's no way to switch to it again except by calling
viewFiles again with a specific ref. But I'm too lazy too figure out how to do
that right now.
After discarding file changes from the commit, the was still referencing
these indexes as being part of the range select. The consequence was
needing to hit escape twice to exit commit files in some situations.
Canceling the range select after discarding changes fixes that.
The waiting status shouldn't happen until after the user has responded
to the popup.
Since we're not giving a standalone prompt about clearing the patch, all
of the business in `discard` doesn't need to be in a function any more
It can be tedious after each cherry-pick opearation to clear the
selection by pressing escape in order for lazygit to stop displaying
info about copied commits. Also, it seems to be a rare case to
cherry-pick commits to more than one destination.
The simplest solution to address this issue is to clear the selection
upon paste.
The only exception is a merge conflict. Initially, I wanted to clear
selected commits in this scenario too. During a discussion we found out
that it may be convenient to have the copied commits still around.
Aborting the rebase and pasting the commits in the middle of a branch
can be a valid use case.
To do that, change the "Apply fixup commits" command to show a menu with the two
choices "in current branch" and "above the selected commit"; we make "in current
branch" the default, as it's the more useful one most of the time, even though
it is a breaking change for those who are used to "shift-S enter" meaning
"squash above selected".
