This should help prevent misuse of "jj bookmark set" with e.g. remote bookmark
name. A remote-looking bookmark can be created by quoting the name if needed.
This patch doesn't change the parsing of name patterns. For patterns, I think
it's better to add support for compound expressions (e.g. `glob:foo* & ~bar`)
rather than adding revset::parse_string_pattern(text) -> StringPattern.
Closes#5705
The "conflict" label is supposed to highlight "(conflict)" markers in commit
template. This patch just removes the label as we don't colorize the same
message in update_working_copy().
In the case where the user has set `snapshot.auto-track` to something
other than `all()`, running `jj st` with a higher file size set just for
that command will not actually fix the user's problem, `jj file track`
needs to be called instead.
Forgetting remote bookmarks can lead to surprising behavior since it
causes the repo state to become out-of-sync with the remote until the
next `jj git fetch`. Untracking the bookmarks should be a simpler and
more intuitive default behavior. The old behavior is still available
with the `--include-remotes` flag.
I also changed the displayed number of forgotten branches. Previously
when forgetting "bookmark", "bookmark@remote", and "bookmark@git" it
would display `Forgot 1 bookmarks`, but I think this would be confusing
with the new flag since the user might think that `--include-remotes`
didn't work. Now it shows separate `Forgot N local bookmarks` and
`Forgot M remote bookmarks` messages when applicable.
The condition we were checking (which I suggested during review) is
very broken. It checks if the new view is equal to view before the
current operation, but that's supposed to always be true (except for
operation that update remote bookmarks). The reason the warning didn't
trigger all the time was that we did the comparison after calling
`merge_view()` but before calling `rebase_descendants()` (via
`tx.finish()`). The former only records commits as abandoned without
actually hiding them. However, because of [the hack][hack] in
`merge_view()` to make it work reasonably well in huge repos, every
undo operation at Google would print the warning.
This patch fixes the bug by checking if the to-be-undone operation is
an undo by comparing its view to its grandparent's view.
[hack]: ec6f8278fd/lib/src/repo.rs (L1693-L1708)
After even more discussion on Discord, we decided to use the new bookmark
behavior immediately and only print a warning during `jj split` if the user has
opted out of the new behavior using the `split.legacy-bookmark-behavior` config
setting.
The reasoning is that if the behavior change breaks someone's workflow or is
very disruptive, they are likely to check the changelog and learn about the
config option. For users that are not adversely impacted, printing a warning
that can only be silenced by changing their config is also disruptive.
#3419
Allows:
* self.commit()
* self.line_number()
* self.first_line_in_hunk()
Certain pagers (like `delta`), when used for `git blame`, only show the
commit information for the first line in a hunk. This would be a nice
addition to `jj file annotate`.
`jj file annotate` already uses a template to control the rendering of
commit information --- `templates.annotate_commit_summary`. Instead of
a custom CLI flag, the tools necessary to do this should be available in
the template language.
If `1 % 2` or `1.is_even()` was available in the template language, this
would also allow alternating colors (using `raw_escape_sequence`).
Example:
```toml
[templates]
# only show commit info for the first line of each hunk
annotate_commit_summary = '''
if(first_line_in_hunk,
show_commit_info(commit),
pad_end(20, " "),
)
'''
```
There's currently no way to tell what `jj fix` is doing. This adds some
traces such that `jj fix --debug` will at least tell you what's being
run and what it's exit code is, similar to other subprocessing code.
It only occurred to me after I rebuilt jj and actually had to run the command
that we should probably recommend a change to the user config instead of the
repo config.
#3419
Currently, `jj split` moves bookmarks from the target revision to the second
revision created by the split. Since the first revision inherits the change id
of the target revision, moving the bookmarks to the first revision is less
surprising (i.e. the bookmarks stay with the change id). This no-implicit-move
behavior also aligns with how `jj abandon` drops bookmarks instead of moving
them to the parent revision.
Two releases from now, `jj split` will no longer move bookmarks to the second
revision created by the split. Instead, local bookmarks associated with the
target revision will move to the first revision created by the split (which
inherits the target revision's change id). You can opt out of this change by
setting `split.legacy-bookmark-behavior = true`, but this will likely be
removed in a future release. You can also try the new behavior now by setting
`split.legacy-bookmark-behavior = false`.
Users who have not opted into the new behavior via the config setting will see
a warning when they run `jj split` informing them about the change. The default
behavior be changed in the future.
The `jj split` tests for bookmarks are updated to run in all three configurations:
- Config setting enabled
- Config setting disabled
- Config setting unset
#3419
With this change a warning is shown if the user does not explicitly specify the target revision, but the behavior is unchanged (it still defaults to the working copy).
In the future the warning will be turned into an error. In other words, it will be required to specify target revision.
The bulk of the changes here are to prepare tests for the upcoming change, to make the transition easier.
For additional details please see:
* https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/issues/5374
* https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/discussions/5363
there are many ways to implement `heads` for your custom backend:
one involves calling `self.evaluate_revset` with a proper revset.
However, it can return an error, but `heads` does not allow it.
In our implementation of the index backend we do exactly the above
and we ended up with several unwraps which we are trying to avoid
as it could potentially crash our prod jobs.
P.S. The same logic applies to many methods in this trait, but I am doing one at a time.
One common issue that users run into with `jj undo` is that they expect
it to behave like an "undo stack", in which every consecutive `jj undo`
execution moves the current state further back in history. This is
(currently) an incorrect intuition - running multiple `jj undo` commands
back-to-back will only result in the previous non-undo change being
reverted, then un-reverted, then reverted, and so on.
This change adds a hint when the user runs `jj undo` multiple times
consecutively, suggesting that they may be looking for `jj op restore`,
which allows them to revert the whole state of the repository back to
a previous snapshot.
With git.subprocess = true, it's more important to skip unneeded remote
operations. Each remote command may involve user intervention if authentication
requires manual step.
This change also means that the remote connection is no longer reused in git2
impl. I think the added cost is acceptable. The git2 impl will hopefully be
removed soon, and the remote branch name is needed only when cloning new repo.
With this and "git --progress" PR #5519, remote git progress will be displayed.
The sideband callback is disabled in git2 code path if progress is not enabled.
If this were enabled, most "git fetch" tests would fail with git2 due to remote
progress messages. Since there's no git2 API to turn the remote progress off,
and the git2 code path is supposed to be phased out, I just inserted ad-hoc
workaround.
