This allows us to use "if(description,)" to test empty description. And
I think this change is unavoidable if we want to add support for commit
template.
I would expect `set_up_fake_[diff_]editor()` to create an empty script
but it turns out they didn't even create the files. That means that
the caller needs to write an empty script to them if they want the
fake editors to not do anything. Let's instead write the empty
scripts, for a less surprising behavior.
The divergent changes are marked with ?? (I found a single ? a bit easy to
overlook), and this should be consistent.
Ideally, the conflicted branches would also be red, but this takes a bit
larger changes to `templater.rs`: another `Property` as well as changes to
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/7f9a0a28/src/template_parser.rs#L385-L395
Otherwise the description set by -m would differ from the one set by editor.
This fixes test_describe() which says "make no changes", but previously "\n"
would be added by the second "jj describe".
As you can see, almost all hashes change in CLI tests. This means in-flight
PRs will need to be rebased to update insta snapshots.
Description text could be normalized by CommitBuilder, but the caller would
have to normalize it beforehand to compare with the current description, so
we would need an explicit function anyway. Another idea is to add a newtype
that represents a normalized description, and make CommitBuilder require it.
Commit::description() will return &Description in place of &str to ensure
that commit.description() == raw_str wouldn't compile.
Git CLI provides --cleanup=<mode> option to switch normalization rules, but
I don't think we'll need such feature.
Let's acknowledge everyone's contributions by replacing "Google LLC"
in the copyright header by "The Jujutsu Authors". If I understand
correctly, it won't have any legal effect, but maybe it still helps
reduce concerns from contributors (though I haven't heard any
concerns).
Google employees can read about Google's policy at
go/releasing/contributions#copyright.
In 8ae9540f2c, I made `jj move/squash/unsquash` not abandon the
working copy if it became empty because that would lose any
description associated with it. It turned out that the new behavior
was also confusing because it made it unclear if the working-copy
commit was actually abandoned. Let's roll back that change and instead
ask the user for a combined description when both the source and
destination commits have non-empty descriptions. Not discarding a
non-empty description seems like a good improvement regardless of the
behavior related to working-copy commits. It's also how `hg fold`
behaves (though hg doesn't allow the description to be empty).
I was initially worried about the cost of always snapshotting the
working copy, so that's why e.g. `jj diff -r <some hash>` doesn't do
it. However, there's been a few caused by missing snapshotting, and
there are still a few (I just noticed it in `jj undo` while writing
this patch). Let's always do the snapshotting and if the user really
doesn't want it, they can pass `--no-commit-working-copy` (which we
should probably rename to `--no-snapshot-working-copy` or maybe just
`--no-snapshot`). That should reduce bugs and make the CLI more
predictable.
Two test cases were affected becasue `jj merge` also didn't snapshot
the working copy.
Before this patch, e.g. `jj co --no-commit-working-copy` would error
out, but now it will succeed (without touching the working copy,
leaving the working copy stale). That may be confusing, but it should
be easy to recover from (e.g. by `jj undo`). We can consider adding a
check for it later if it seems too confusing (it's probably rarely
something the user wanted).
We had tests for `jj move` and `jj squash`, but not for `jj
unsquash`. I'm about to add a `--keep` option, so let's add tests for
the current behavior first.
