This was already possible, but only when a file was selected, and it woudln't
always land on the right line when a pager was used. Now it's also possible to
do this for directories, and it jumps to the right line.
At the moment this is a hack that relies on delta's hyperlinks, so it only works
on lines that have hyperlinks (added and context).
The implementation is very hacky for other reasons too (e.g. the addition of the
weirdly named ClickedViewRealLineIdx to OnFocusOpts).
The long story: I want to call this function from RefsHelper; however, I can't
make WorkingTreeHelper a field of RefsHelper because RefsHelper is already a
field in WorkingTreeHelper, so that would be a circular dependency.
The shorter story: there's really little reason to have to instantiate a helper
object in order to call a simple function like this. Long term I would like to
get to a state where a lot more of these helper functions are free-standing, and
you pass in the data they need.
While at it, simplify the implementation of AnyStagedFiles and AnyTrackedFiles
to one-liners.
It's the same, really, except that GetCheckedOutRef() does a check if any
branches exist and returns nil if not. Since we are accessing the returned
branch unconditionally without checking for nil, it seems this check is not
needed here. (The functions we are touching here are called from handlers that
are guarded with itemSelected or singleItemSelected, so we know that at least
one branch exists.)
The goal is to get rid of the dependency to refsHelper.
In this commit this is only possible by pressing '0' in a side panel; we'll add
mouse clicking later in the branch.
Also, you can't really do anything in the focused view except press escape to
leave it again. We'll add some more functionality in a following commit.
Previously we would render the diff for a directory to the main/secondary pair,
but a diff for a file to the staging/stagingSecondary pair. (And similar for
commit files: main/secondary for directories, but
patchBuilding/patchBuildingSecondary for files.)
I always found this confusing and couldn't really understand why we are doing
this; but now it gets in my way because I want to attach a controller to
main/secondary so that they can be focused. So change it to always use the main
context pair for everything we render from a side panel.
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.
We treat the .git/sequencer/todo file as read-only. Technically it seems it
would be possible to treat it as modifiable in the same way as
.git/rebase-merge/git-rebase-todo, effectively turning a cherry-pick or revert
that stops at a conflict into an interactive rebase; however, git itself doesn't
allow this (there is no "git cherry-pick --edit-todo"), so it seems safer not to
rely on it.
Theoretically it would be possible to allow modifying the rebase todos when a
cherry-pick or revert conflicts in the middle of a rebase. However, it would
introduce a bit of complexity to support this, as we would have to be able to
distinguish between rebasing todos and cherry-picking/reverting todos, which we
currently can't; it could also be a bit error-prone as far as edge cases are
concerned. And it's really a pretty uncommon situation, so it doesn't seem worth
it, and we just forbid all modifications to todos whenever we are cherry-picking
or reverting.
It is useful to see if the conflicted commit was a "pick" or an "edit". What's
more, we're about to add support for showing cherry-picks and reverts, and
seeing that a conflicted commit was a revert is important because its diff is
backwards compared to the diff of the conflicting files in the Files panel.
This is equivalent in the current state of the code, but it will no longer be
after the next commit, because we will introduce a new status value
StatusConflicted. And in a later PR we might add yet another value
StatusCherryPicking to distinguish rebase todos from cherry-pick todos; using
commit.IsTODO is a safer way to check whether a commit is any of these.
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.
It looks like enums.go was supposed to be file that collects a bunch of enums,
but actually there's only one in there, and since it has methods, it deserves to
be in a file of its own, named after the type.
- Remove REBASE_MODE_NORMAL. It is not the "normal" mode anyway, rather a legacy
mode; we have removed support for it in eb0f7e3d02, so there's no point in
representing it in the enum.
- Remove distinction between REBASE_MODE_REBASING and REBASE_MODE_INTERACTIVE;
these are the same now.
- Rename StatusCommands.IsInInteractiveRebase to IsInRebase.
- Remove StatusCommands.RebaseMode; use StatusCommands.IsInRebase instead.
It is shown either when committing with `w`, or when typing the skipHooks prefix
if there is one. This should hopefully make it clearer when the hooks are run
and when they are not.
We removed prefilling the skipHook prefix in b102646b207 with the intention of
making it clearer that using the prefix in normal commits and typing `w` to skip
hooks are now two independent features.
It turns out that some people liked it with prefilling the prefix and perceive
it as a regression, so put it back in.
But only if we don't have a preserved message; this is an important use case,
when you try to make a normal commit, the hook fails, and then you want to make
the same commit with skipping the hook, but with the same message that you
already typed.
This makes it possible to use date and time in initial values like this:
```yaml
initialValue: 'ruudk/{{ runCommand "date +\"%Y/%-m\"" }}/'
```
I want to use this to configure my BranchPrefix like this:
```yaml
git:
branchPrefix: 'ruudk/{{ runCommand "date +\"%Y/%-m\"" }}/'
```
For the less common conflict types DD, AU, UA, DU, and UD, we would previously
only show "* Unmerged path" in the main view, which isn't helpful. Also, for
some of these we would split the main view and show this text both in the
unstaged changes and staged changes views, which is a bit embarrassing.
Improve this by offering more explanation about what's going on, and what the
most likely way to resolve the situation is for each case.
I can only guess here: maybe they were added to more clearly document the public
interface of the classes? If so, I don't think that works. Developers who are
not familiar with the convention will just add a new public method to the class
without updating the interface.
