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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm combining the delete single file case from `discard_old_file_change`
with the content of `discard_range_select` and calling that
`discard_old_file_changes`. Hopefully that cleans things up a little
bit.
This also adds a check that the custom patch is getting reset properly.
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
The algorithm works by blaming the deleted lines, so if a hunk contains only
added lines, we can only hope that it also belongs in the same commit. Warn the
user about this.
Note: the warning might be overly agressive, we'll have to see if this is
annoying. The reason is that it depends on the diff context size whether added
lines go into their own hunk or are grouped together with other added or deleted
lines into one hunk. However, our algorithm uses a diff context size of 0,
because that makes it easiest to parse the diff; this results in hunks having
only added lines more often than what the user sees. For example, moving a line
of code down by two lines will likely result in a single hunk for the user, but
in two hunks for our algorithm. On the other hand, being this strict makes the
warning consistent. We could consider using the user's diff context size in the
algorithm, but then it would depend on the current context size whether the
warning appears, which could be confusing. Plus, it would make the algorithm
quite a bit more complicated.
There are two possible fixes for this bug, and they differ in behavior when
rewording a commit. The one I chose here always splits at the first line feed,
which means that for an improperly formatted commit message such as this one:
This is a very long multi-line subject,
which you shouldn't really use in git.
And this is the body (we call it "description" in lazygit).
we split after the first line instead of after the first paragraph. This is
arguably not what the original author meant, but splitting after the first
paragraph doesn't really work well in lazygit, because we would try to put both
lines into the one-line subject field of the message panel, and you'd only see
the second and not even know that there are more.
The other potential fix would have been to join subject and description with two
line feeds instead of one in JoinCommitMessageAndDescription; this would have
fixed our bug in the same way, but would result in splitting the above message
after the second line instead of the first. I think that's worse, so I decided
for the first fix.
While we're at it, simplify the code a little bit; strings.Cut is documented to
return (s, "") when the separator is not found, so there's no need to do this on
our side.
We do have to trim spaces on the description now, to support the regular reword
case where subject and body are separated by a blank line.
SplitCommitMessageAndDescription splits at the first '\n\n' that it finds (if
there is one), which in this case is between the two paragraphs of the
description. This is wrong.
Add co-author to commits
Add addCoAuthor command for commits
- Implement the `addCoAuthor` command to add co-authors to commits.
- Utilize suggestions helpers to populate author names from the suggestions list.
- Added command to gui at `LocalCommitsController`.
This commit introduces the `addCoAuthor` command, which allows users to easily add co-authors to their commits. The co-author names are populated from the suggestions list, minimizing the chances of user input errors. The co-authors are added using the Co-authored-by metadata format recognized by GitHub and GitLab.
Previously we used a single-line prompt for a tag annotation. Now we're using the commit message
prompt.
I've had to update other uses of that prompt to allow the summary and description labels to
be passed in
Previously, we would only show the authors based on local commits, but sometimes you want to set a commit author
to that of a commit on another branch. Now, so long as you've viewed the branch's commits, the author will appear
as a suggestion.
A better refactor would be to allow matchers to assert against either a string or a slice of cells, so that I could have
the same ergonomics that I have elsewhere, but this is a start.
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
When cycling history, we want to make it so that upon returning to the original prompt, you get your text back.
Importantly, we don't want to use the existing preservedMessage field for that because that's only for preserving
a NEW commit message, and we don't want the history stuff of the commit reword flow to overwrite that.
When we use the one panel for the entire commit message, its tricky to have a keybinding both for adding a newline and submitting.
By having two panels: one for the summary line and one for the description, we allow for 'enter' to submit the message when done from the summary panel,
and 'enter' to add a newline when done from the description panel. Alt-enter, for those who can use that key combo, also works for submitting the message
from the description panel. For those who can't use that key combo, and don't want to remap the keybinding, they can hit tab to go back to the summary panel
and then 'enter' to submit the message.
We have some awkwardness in that both contexts (i.e. panels) need to appear and disappear in tandem and we don't have a great way of handling that concept,
so we just push both contexts one after the other, and likewise remove both contexts when we escape.
We already have this very convenient behavior of jumping to the next stageable
line after staging something. However, while this worked well for staging
single lines or hunks, it didn't work correctly when staging a range of lines;
in this case we want to start searching from the first line of the range.
