What happens here is that when stopping on an "edit" todo entry, we rely on the
assumption that if the .git/rebase-merge/amend file exists, the command was
successful, and if it doesn't, there was a conflict. The problem is that when
you stop on an edit command, and then run a multi-commit cherry-pick or rebase,
this will delete the amend file. You may or may not consider this a bug in git;
to work around it, we also check the existence of the rebase-merge/message file,
which will be deleted as well by the cherry-pick or revert.
MergeRebasingCommits already merges the rebasing commits into the commits slice
that is passed in, so it doesn't make sense to append the result to commits
again. It isn't a problem, but only because commits is always empty.
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.
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.
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.
It is a valid case for a branch to share no history with any of the main
branches, in which case git merge-base returns an error (and an empty string).
Since we can't distinguish this from one of the main branches having been
deleted, we shouldn't invalidate the cache in that case.
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.
We are going to truncate overly long lines returned from git log, and the most
likely field that is going to make the line too long is the subject; so we must
put it last, otherwise we'd end up with not enough fields to split when it's too
long.
It might not be obvious from the diff what's happening to the mock command
output in the test: it didn't have the divergence field (">") at all, which was
kind of a bug. It didn't matter for these tests though, because we are not
testing the divergence here, and our production code happens to be resilient
against it missing. But now we must add the ">" field before the subject.
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.
When doing a non-interactive rebase using a version of git earlier than 2.26, or
by explicitly calling `git -c rebase.backend=apply rebase`, lazygit can display
the pending todos by parsing the numbered patch files in `.git/rebase-apply/`.
Unfortunately, support for this has been broken for more than three years
because of the change in 682db77401e (the string literal "normal" should have
been changed to REBASE_MODE_NORMAL instead of REBASE_MODE_MERGING).
It's not an important bug since you can only get into this situation by doing a
rebase outside of lazygit, and then only with a pretty old git version or by
using very uncommon git options. So instead of fixing the bug, just remove the
code.
This commit introduces a new feature to the commit view, allowing users
to filter commits based on the author's name or email address. Similar
to the existing path filtering functionality, accessible through <c-s>,
this feature allows users to filter the commit history by the currently
selected commit's author if the commit view is focused, or by typing in
the author's name or email address.
This feature adds an entry to the filtering menu, to provide users with
a familiar and intuitive experience
Since the slice stores pointers to objects, and we're only modifying the objects
but not the slice itself, there's no need to return it and assign it back. This
will allow us to call the function for subslices of commits.
Also, move the condition that checks for an empty string inside the function;
we're going to call it from more than one place, so this makes it easier.
It determines the yellow/red status by getting the merge-base between the
current branch and its upstream; while we're rebasing, the current branch is
HEAD, so it tried to get the merge-base between HEAD and HEAD{u}, which doesn't
work. Fix this by passing the name of the checked-out branch separately.
Update-ref commands have an empty sha, and strings.HasPrefix returns true when
called with an empty second argument, so whenever an update-ref command is
present in a rebase, all commits from there on down were drawn with a green sha.
We've been sometimes using lo and sometimes using my slices package, and we need to pick one
for consistency. Lo is more extensive and better maintained so we're going with that.
My slices package was a superset of go's own slices package so in some places I've just used
the official one (the methods were just wrappers anyway).
I've also moved the remaining methods into the utils package.
There are quite a few paths you might want to get e.g. the repo's path, the worktree's path,
the repo's git dir path, the worktree's git dir path. I want these all obtained once and
then used when needed rather than having to have IO whenever we need them. This is not so
much about reducing time spent on IO as it is about not having to care about errors every time
we want a path.
The speedup is most noticeable on first load, when we haven't yet fetched out main branches.
I saw a speedup from 105ms to 60ms. On subsequent loads the gain is more modest;
54ms to 40ms
The code in getHydratedRebasingCommits relied on the assumption that the
git-rebase-todo file contains full SHAs. This has only been true from 2.25.2 on,
before that it would contain abbreviated SHAs. Fix this by storing fullCommits
in a slice instead of a map, and using a linear search.
This solves three problems:
1. When the local main branch is behind its upstream, the merged status of
commits of a feature branch sitting on origin/main was not correct. This can
easily happen when you rebase a branch onto origin/main instead of main, and
don't bother keeping local main up to date.
2. It works when you don't have the main branch locally at all. This could
happen when you check out a colleague's feature branch that goes off of
"develop", but you don't have "develop" locally yourself because you normally
only work on "main".
3. It also works when you work on a main branch itself, e.g. by committing to it
directly, or by merging a branch locally. These local commits on a main
branch would previously be shown in green instead of red; this broke with
910a61dc46.
When stopping in a rebase because of a conflict, it is nice to see the commit
that git is trying to apply. Create a fake todo entry labelled "conflict" for
this, and show the "<-- YOU ARE HERE ---" string for that one (in red) instead
of for the real current head.
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
It defaults to {"master", "main"}, but can be set to whatever branch names
are used as base branches, e.g. {"master", "devel", "v1.0-hotfixes"}. It is
used for color-coding the shas in the commit list, i.e. to decide whether
commits are green or yellow.
Previously, when rebasing a branch onto a newer master, all commits from the
previous fork point up to its head were marked red (unpushed), including the
commits that are on master already. While this is technically correct from the
perspective of the current branch's upstream, it's not what most people expect,
intuitively; they want to see where the current branch starts, relative to
master. So all commits of master should be green, and then the commits of the
current branch in red.
This is useful when working with stacked branches, because you can now move
"pick" entries across an update-ref command and you can tell exactly which
branch the commit will end up in.
It's also useful to spot situations where the --update-refs option didn't work
as desired. For example, if you duplicate a branch and want to rebase only one
of the branches but not the other (maybe for testing); if you have
rebase.updateRefs=true in your git config, then rebasing one branch will move
the other branch along. To solve this we'll have to introduce a way to delete
the update-ref entry (maybe by hitting backspace?); this is out of scope for
this PR, so for now users will have to type "git rebase --edit-todo" into the
custom command prompt to sort this out.
We will also have to prevent users from trying to turn update-ref commands into
other commands like "pick" or "drop"; we'll do this later in this branch.
So far the algorithm worked on the assumption that the output of the "git show"
command corresponds one-to-one to the lines of the rebase-todo file. This
assumption doesn't hold once we start to include todo lines that don't have a
sha (like update-ref), or when the todo file contains multiple entries for the
same sha. This should never happen normally, but it can if users manually edit
the todo file and duplicate a line.
The main reason for doing this (besides the reasons given for Status in the
previous commit) is that it allows us to easily convert from TodoCommand to
Action and back. This will be needed later in the branch. Fortunately,
TodoCommand is one-based, so this allows us to add an ActionNone constant with
the value 0.
This is unrelated to the changes in this PR, but since we are doing the same
thing for the commit.Action field in the next commit, it makes sense to do it
for Status too for consistency. Modelling this as an enum feels more natural
than modelling it as a string, since there's a finite set of possible values.
And it saves a little bit of memory (not very much, since none of the strings
were heap-allocated, but still).
