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.
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.
The current rules for discarding submodule changes is that no other changed item
must be also selected. There are some bugs with the current implementation when
submodules are in folders.
For example, selecting and discarding a folder with only a nested submodule
change will currently do nothing. The submodule changes should be discarded. The
folder only contains submodule changes so it should be no different than
pressing discard on the submodule entry itself.
Also, I noticed range selecting both the folder and the submodule and then
pressing discard would be incorrectly disallowed.
This includes the "only conflicting" status that the user can't switch to
themselves. We display it anyway to give a hint that files are being filtered,
and to let them know that they can turn the filter off if they want to.
I renamed the "Reset filter" item to "No filter" to make it look more like a
state than an action, so that it fits the radio button concept better.
When there are conflicts and we set the filter to show only conflicting files,
then none of the radio buttons light up, which is slightly strange. I guess it's
ok though.
This handles the situation where the user's own config says to not show
untracked files, as is often the case with bare repos managing a user's
dotfiles.
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.
Strike it through if not applicable. This will hopefully help with confusion
about the meaning of "all" in the "Discard all changes" entry; some people
misunderstand this to mean all changes in the working copy. Seeing the "Discard
unstaged changes" item next to it hopefully makes it clearer that "all" is meant
in contrast to that.
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.
This adds a bunch of tooltips to keybindings and updates some keybinding descriptions (i.e. labels).
It's in preparation for displaying more keybindings on-screen (in the bottom right of the screen),
and so due in part to laziness it shortens some descriptions so that we don't need to manage both
a short and long description (for on-screen vs in-menu). Nonetheless I've added a ShortDescription
field for when we do want to have both a short and long description.
You'll notice that some keybindings I deemed unworthy of the options view have longer descriptions,
because I could get away with it.
As part of this, you must now press enter on a merge conflict file
to focus the merge view; you can no longer press space and if you do
it will raise an error.
Something dumb that we're currently doing is expecting list items
to define an ID method which returns a string. We use that when copying
items to clipboard with ctrl+o and when getting a ref name for diffing.
This commit gets us a little deeper into that hole by explicitly requiring
list items to implement that method so that we can easily use the new
helper functions in list_controller_trait.go.
In future we need to just remove the whole ID thing entirely but I'm too
lazy to do that right now.
We want to show an error when the user tries to invoke an action that expects only
a single item to be selected.
We're using the GetDisabledReason field to enforce this (as well as DisabledReason
on menu items).
I've created a ListControllerTrait to store some shared convenience functions for this.
We're not fully standardising here: different contexts can store their range state however
they like. What we are standardising on is that now the view is always responsible for
highlighting the selected lines, meaning the context/controller needs to tell the view
where the range start is.
Two convenient benefits from this change:
1) we no longer need bespoke code in integration tests for asserting on selected lines because
we can just ask the view
2) line selection in staging/patch-building/merge-conflicts views now look the same as in
list views i.e. the highlight applies to the whole line (including trailing space)
I also noticed a bug with merge conflicts not rendering the selection on focus though I suspect
it wasn't a bug with any real consequences when the view wasn't displaying the selection.
I'm going to scrap the selectedRangeBgColor config and just let it use the single line
background color. Hopefully nobody cares, but there's really no need for an extra config.
This fixes two minor problems with the prompts:
1. When pressing shift-A in the local commits view, it would first prompt
whether to stage all files, and then it would prompt whether to amend the
commit at all. This doesn't make sense, it needs to be the other way round.
2. When pressing shift-A on the head commit in an interactive rebase, we would
ask whether they want to amend the last commit, like when pressing shift-A in
the files view. While this is technically correct, the fact that we're
amending the head commit in this case is just an implementation detail, and
from the user's point of view it's better to use the same prompt as we do for
any other commit.
To fix these, we remove the confirmation panel from AmendHelper.AmendHead() and
instead add it at the two call sites, so that we have more control over this.
