It's easier to review insta snapshot diffs than scanning panic log containing
lengthy output. I think this will also help printf debugging.
test_global_opts.rs is migrated to new API as an example.
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().
I'm going to add "[EOF]" marker to test that command output is terminated by
newline char. This patch ensures that callers who expect a raw output string
would never be affected by any normalization passes.
Some common normalization functions are extracted as CommandOutputString
methods.
Although this behaviour is accepted by git, it's a degenerate case.
Especially because we implicitely rely on being able to parse out the
remote from the refname (i.e., `refs/remotes/<remote>/<branch>`).
Branches can have forward slashes, but if remotes can also have them,
parsing the refname becomes ambiguous, and a pain. Especially because it
would be totally legal to have a branch "c" on remote "a/b" and a branch
"b" on remote "a".
Fixes#5731
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, " "),
)
'''
```
This was discussed in the Discord a while ago, and this is the logical and consistent
conclusion. Implementing it as such makes it consistent with both `jj edit` and `jj new`
which make hidden commits such as predecessors visible.
This actually was Martins work, I just added the tests.
Co-Authored-by: martinvonz <martinvonz@google.com>
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
The fix settings weren't indented consistent with the rest of the settings,
causing them to appear in the redacted snapshot in the test_util_config_schema
test.
We are planning to add a config option that controls how bookmarks and change
ids move during `jj split` based on feedback in https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/pull/5618.
I think the tests will be more readable after the config option is added if we
move the bookmark testing to its own test.
#3419
"$comment" is not officially supported by draft-4, but it is in newer
drafts, and JSON schema readers are supposed to skip fields that
are not known to them.
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
Given the previously‐stated intention of making this default
for the 0.27 release, prepare for that decision ahead of time by
enabling subprocessing by default on trunk. This will help surface
any regressions and workflow incompatibilities and therefore give
us more information to decide whether to keep or revert this commit,
without inconveniencing any users who haven’t already opted in to
the bleeding edge.
Please feel free to revert without hesitation if any major issues
arise; this is not intended as a strong commitment to enable this
option for the next stable release if it turns out to not be ready. In
that case, it’s better that we learn that early on in the cycle,
rather than having to revert at the last minute or, worse, cutting
a stable release that we later find contains a serious regression.
When a commit is split, the second commit produced by the split becomes the
working copy commit for all workspaces whose working copy commit was the target
of the split.
This commit adds two tests for this behavior:
1. Split a commit which is the working copy commit for two workspaces.
2. Split a commit which is the working copy commit for only one of the two
workspaces.
These tests check that the working copy commits for the workspaces are updated
correctly. Both parallel and non-parallel splits are tested.
