At the same time, we change the defaults for both of them to "date" (they were
"recency" and "alphabetical", respectively, before). This is the reason we need
to touch so many integration tests. For some of them I decided to adapt the test
assertions to the changed sort order; for others, I added a SetupConfig step to
set the order back to "recency" so that I don't have to change what the test
does (e.g. how many SelectNextItem() calls are needed to get to a certain
branch).
Keep the same commit selected, by moving the selection down by the number of
cherry-picked commits. We also do this when reverting commits, and it is
possible now that we use a sync waiting status.
We also need to turn the refresh that happens as part of CheckMergeOrRebase into
a sync one, so that the commits list is up to date and the new selection isn't
clamped.
We are about to change the selection behavior when cherry-picking, and it's good
to have tests that document in what way it changes in the next commit.
This is very old; I can only guess that this was added at a time where today's
list column handling wasn't in place yet, so the space was needed to separate
columns. This now causes a gap of two spaces between the rebase todo column and
the author column, which I'm sure wasn't intended. Funny that I never noticed.
We do this because
- it's closer to what you would do on the command line
- it simplifies the code a bit
- it will allow us to support cherry-picking merge commits.
When you are in the middle of a rebase, and you cherry-pick a commit which
conflicts, it helps to be clear on whether you are prompted to continue the
cherry-pick or the rebase.
After pasting commits once, we hide the cherry-picking status (as if it had been
reset), and no longer paint the copied commits with blue hashes; however, we
still allow pasting them again. This can be useful e.g. to backport a bugfix to
multiple major version release branches.
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.
This requires us to change the 'v' keybinding for paste to something else,
now that 'v' is used globally for toggling range select. So I'm using
'shift+v' and I'm likewise changing 'c' to 'shift+c' for copying, so
that they're consistent.
We will need to clearly communicate this change in keybindings.
This can be useful when you know that a cherry-picked commit would conflict at
the tip of your branch, but doesn't at the beginning of the branch (or
somewhere in the middle). In that case you want to be able to edit the commit
before where you want to insert the cherry-picked commits, and then paste to
insert them into the todo list at that point.
We have not been good at consistent casing so far. Now we use 'Sentence case' everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Also Removing 'Lc' prefix from i18n field names: the 'Lc' stood for lowercase but now that everything
is in 'Sentence case' there's no need for the distinction.
I've got a couple lower case things I've kept: namely, things that show up in parentheses.
By constructing an arg vector manually, we no longer need to quote arguments
Mandate that args must be passed when building a command
Now you need to provide an args array when building a command.
There are a handful of places where we need to deal with a string,
such as with user-defined custom commands, and for those we now require
that at the callsite they use str.ToArgv to do that. I don't want
to provide a method out of the box for it because I want to discourage its
use.
For some reason we were invoking a command through a shell when amending a
commit, and I don't believe we needed to do that as there was nothing user-
supplied about the command. So I've switched to using a regular command out-
side the shell there
