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.
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.
Rewording a commit at the beginning of a long branch can take very long;
without this change, the commit message panel would stay visible with a blinking
cursor during that time, which is very confusing.
This has the slight downside that it will say "Rebasing" in the lower right
corner until the operation is done; but we already have this problem when doing
custom patch operations, or dropping changes from a commit, so it's not new, and
we can think about how to fix all these another time.
WithGpgHandling already does an async refresh when done, so there's no need to
do one here for the case of amending the head commit. On top of that,
WithGpgHandling uses WithWaitingStatus and works in the background, so the
Refresh here would come too early anyway.
All this does is clear the preserved commit message; however, we open the commit
message panel with PreserveMessage: false when rewording, so this is not
necessary.
For non-merge commits we change "pick" to "drop" when we delete them. We do this
so that we can use the same code for dropping a commit no matter whether we are
in an interactive rebase or not. (If we aren't, we could just as well delete the
pick line from the todo list instead of setting it to "drop", but if we are, it
is better to keep the line around so that the user can change it back to "pick"
if they change their mind.)
However, merge commits can't be changed to "drop", so we have to delete them
from the todo file. We add a new daemon instruction that does this.
We still don't allow deleting a merge commit from within an interactive rebase.
The reason is that we don't show the "label" and "reset" todos in lazygit, so
deleting a merge commit would leave the commits from the branch that is being
merged in the list as "pick" commits, with no indication that they are going to
be dropped because they are on a different branch, and the merge commit that
would have brought them in is gone. This could be very confusing.
Not much of a change in behavior, because moving merge commits was already not
possible. However, it failed with a cryptic error message ("Todo fa1afe1 not
found in git-rebase-todo"), so disable it properly instead.
In 67b8ef449c we changed the "edit" command to insert a "break" after the
selected commit, rather than setting the selected todo to "edit". The reason for
doing this was that it now works for merge commits too.
Back then, I claimed "In most cases the behavior is exactly the same as before."
Unfortunately that's not true, there are two reasons why the previous behavior
was better (both are demonstrated by tests earlier in this branch):
- when editing the last commit of a branch in the middle of a stack of branches,
we are now missing the update-ref todo after it, which means that amending the
commit breaks the stack
- it breaks auto-amending (see the added test earlier in this branch for an
explanation)
For these reasons, we are going back to the previous approach of setting the
selected commit to "edit" whenever possible, i.e. unless it's a merge commit.
The only scenario where this could still be a problem is when you have a stack
of branches, and the last commit of one of the branches in the stack is a merge
commit, and you try to edit that. In my experience with stacked branches this is
very unlikely, in almost all cases my stacked branches are linear.
This might seem controversial; in many cases the client code gets longer,
because it needs an extra line for an explicit `return nil`. I still prefer
this, because it makes it clearer which calls can return errors.
In other views that show lists of commits (reflog and stash) it doesn't make
sense to show a range diff of selected entries because they don't form a linear
sequence, so we keep the previous behavior of showing the diff for the free end
of the selection range in those view.
The same applies to the commits view if the selection range includes rebasing
todos; these can have an arbitrary order, and a range diff doesn't make sense
for those.
It is already possible to search a filtered list by searching first, and then
enabling a filter, so I found it inconsistent to not allow searching when you
are already filtering. One reason for not allowing this might be that the search
status (on the left) hides the filter status (on the right), but if we think
that's enough reason to not allow both at the same time, then we should cancel a
search when we enter filtering.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to delete them. This would often be useful, but
our todo rewriting mechanisms rely on being able to find todos by some
identifier (hash for pick, ref for update-ref), and exec todos don't have a
unique identifier.
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.
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.
This lets us get rid of a few more calls to Error(), and it simplifies things
for clients of OnWorker: they can simply return an error from their callback
like we do everywhere else.
We upgraded our minimum Go version to 1.21 in commit
57ac9c2189458a7f0e63c2e9cac8334694a3d545. We can now replace our
`utils.Min` and `utils.Max` functions with the built-in `min` and `max`.
Reference: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Min_and_max
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
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.
