| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
We now always re-use the state of the repo if we're returning to it, and we always reset the windows to their default tabs.
We reset to default tabs because it's easy to implement. If people want to:
* have tab states be retained when switching
* have tab states specific to the current repo retained when switching back
Then we'll need to revisit this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going and fixing up some submodule tests which were broken by bad assumptions with worktree code
|
|
We now change directories to the repo on startup so we don't need to determine the test path in some special way
|
|
For marking as good or bad, the current commit is pretty much always the one you
want to mark, not the selected. It's different for skipping; sometimes you know
already that a certain commit doesn't compile, for example, so you might
navigate there and mark it as skipped. So in the case that the current commit is
not the selected one, we now offer two separate menu entries for skipping, one
for the current commit and one for the selected.
|
|
This can be useful if you want to find the commit that fixed a bug (you'd use
"broken/fixed" instead of "good/bad" in this case), or if you want to find the
commit that brought a big performance improvement (use "slow/fast"). It's pretty
mind-bending to have to use "good/bad" in these cases, and swap their meanings
in your head.
Thankfully, lazygit already had support for using custom terms during the bisect
(for the case that a bisect was started on the command-line, I suppose), so all
that's needed is adding a way to specify them in lazygit.
|
|
|
|
Issue #1055
test: CopyPatchToClipboard (temporary commit for review)
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
This adds fuzzy filtering instead of exact match filtering, which is more forgiving of typos
and allows more efficiency.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a use-case to rebind 'm' to the merge action in the branches panel. There's three ways to handle this:
1) For all global keybindings, define a per-panel key that invokes it
2) Give a name to all controller actions and allow them to be invoked in custom commands
3) Allow checking for merge conflicts after running a custom command so that users can add their own 'git merge' custom command
that matches the in-built action
Option 1 is hairy, Option 2 though good for users introduces new backwards compatibility issues that I don't want to do
right now, and option 3 is trivially easy to implement so that's what I'm doing.
I've put this under an 'after' key so that we can add more things later. I'm imagining other things like being able to
move the cursor to a newly added item etc.
I considered always running this hook by default but I'd rather not: it's matching on the output text and I'd rather something
like that be explicitly opted-into to avoid cases where we erroneously believe that there are conflicts.
|
|
It seems that older git versions would drop empty commits when rebasing. Since
this aspect is not relevant to what we're testing here, fix this by simply
avoiding empty commits in these tests.
|
|
The test apply_in_reverse_with_conflict.go fails in git versions 2.30.8 and
earlier. Apparently the output "Applied patch to 'file2' cleanly" was only added
more recently. It's not essential that we check this output.
|
|
Older versions need an explicit "push" subcommand for the -m option to be
recognized.
|
|
It's identical to Stash(), so use that.
|
|
Older versions of git don't support the -b option yet. However, no version of
git complains about the -c option, even when the init.defaultBranch config is
not supported.
|
|
For older git versions we won't be able to support any other main branch than
"master", so hard-code that in Init.
This doesn't fix anything for older versions yet; see the next commit for that.
|
|
Now that we are running each test 6 times on CI, the risk of flakiness
is higher. I want to fix these tests for good but it'l take time, so
we're just retrying for now
|
|
I don't know why we're getting index.lock errors but they're impossile to stop
anyway given that other processes can be calling git commands. So we're retrying
a few times before re-raising. To do this we need to clone the command and the current
implementation for that is best-effort.
I do worry about the maintainability of that but we'll see how it goes.
Also, I thought you'd need to clone the task (if it exists) but now I think not;
as long as you don't call done twice on it you should be fine, and you shouldn't
be done'ing a task as part of running a command: that should happen higher up.
|
|
It's still skipped but it had an error
|
|
I was able to get all integration tests passing 20 times in a row without any retries so I'm going to see
if we can rely on that in CI
|
|
I want to see how we go removing all retry logic within a test. Lazygit should be trusted to tell us when it's no longer busy,
and if it that proves false we should fix the issue in the code rather than being lenient in the tests
|
|
Integration tests need to be notified when Lazygit is idle so they can progress to the next assertion / user action.
|
|
|
|
There's more work to be done to support filtering for these views so we're sticking with searching for now
|
|
The remote branches controller was using its own escape method meaning it didn't go through the flow of cancelling
an active filter. It's now using the same approach as the sub-commits and commit-files contexts: defining a parent
context to return to upon hittin escape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Stefan Haller <stefan@haller-berlin.de>
|
|
|
|
The title was saying "Unstage lines", which was just wrong. The text said
"Delete lines", which can be seen as a bit misleading; we are only discarding
the changes to the selected lines, not deleting the lines themselves.
For consistency, rename the config variable skipUnstageLineWarning accordingly.
|
|
This test is almost identical to swap_in_rebase_with_conflict.go, except that it
sets the commit that will conflict to "edit".
This test is interesting because there's special code needed to determine
whether an "edit" command conflicted or not, i.e. whether to show the "confl"
entry. In this case we do. We have lots of other tests already that have "edit"
commands that don't conflict, so that's covered already.
|
|
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.
|
|
The point of this test is to verify that the <--- YOU ARE HERE --- display is
correct when the last command in a rebase was "reword".
|
|
This test is interesting because it already behaves as desired: since git has
rescheduled the "pick" command, we do _not_ want to show a "conflict" entry in
this case, as we would see the same commit twice then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We use CommitFilesController also for the files of commits that we show
elsewhere, e.g. for branch commits, tags, or stashes. It doesn't make sense to
discard changes from those (for stashes it might be possible to implement it
somehow, but that would be a new feature), so we disallow it unless we are in
the local commits panel.
|
|
Lazygit knows what kind of file change this is, so there doesn't have to be any
"if" in the prompt text.
|
|
I don't know why we were setting the initial context to CurrentSideContext
and not just CurrentContext in the first place. If there is no current context
in either case it'll default to the files context. So the only issue is if
we anticipated that some random context would be focused and we didn't want to
activate that. But I can't think of any situation where that would happen.
|
|
Whenever we perform an action in a test, we should assert on the result before doing the next action.
This prevents issues where the test moves too fast for our code. It would be nice to not have to do this,
but for now that's the situation
|
