Since there's no easy API to snapshot the stale working copy without releasing
the lock, we have to compare the tree ids after reacquiring the lock. We could
instead manually snapshot and rebase the working-copy commit, but that would
require more copy-paste codes.
Closes#1310
The outermost "op-log" label isn't moved to the default template. I think
it belongs to the command's formatter rather than the template.
Old bikeshedding items:
- "current_head", "is_head", or "is_head_op"
=> renamed to "current_operation"
- "templates.op-log" vs "templates.op_log" (the whole template is labeled
as "op-log")
=> renamed to "op_log"
- "template-aliases.'format_operation_duration(time_range)'"
=> renamed to 'format_time_range(time_range)'
We write conflict to the working copy by materializing them as
conflict markers in a file. When the file has been modified (or just
the mtime has changed), we parse the markers to reconstruct the
conflict. For example, let's say we see this conflict marker:
```
<<<<<<<
+++++++
b
%%%%%%%
-a
+c
>>>>>>>
```
Then we will create a hunk with ["a"] as removed and ["b", "c"] as
added.
Now, since commit b84be06c08, when we materialize conflicts, we
minimize the diff part of the marker (the `%%%%%%%` part). The problem
is that that minimization may result in a different order of the
positive conflict terms. That's particularly bad because we do the
minimization per hunk, so we can end up reconstructing an input that
never existed.
This commit fixes the bug by only considering the next add and the one
after that, and emitting either only the first with `%%%%%%%`, or both
of them, with the first one in `++++++++` and the second one in
`%%%%%%%`.
Note that the recent fix to add context to modify/delete conflicts
means that when we parse modified such conflicts, we'll always
consider them resolved, since the expected adds/removes we pass will
not match what's actually in the file. That doesn't seem so bad, and
it's not obvious what the fix should be, so I'll leave that for later.
When we materialize modify/delete conflicts, we currently don't
include any context lines. That's because modify/delete conflicts have
only two sides, so there's no common base to compare to. Hunks that
are unchanged on the "modify" side are therefore not considered
conflicting, and since they they don't contribute new changes, they're
simply skipped (here:
3dfedf5814/lib/src/files.rs (L228-L230)).
It seems more useful to instead pretend that the missing side is an
empty file. That way we'll get a conflict in the entire file.
We can still decide later to make e.g. `jj resolve` prompt the user on
modify/delete conflicts just like `hg resolve` does (or maybe it
actually happens earlier there, I don't remember).
Closes#1244.
Since type/name checking is made after alias substitution, we need to preserve
the original context to generate a readable error message.
We could instead attach a stack of (alias_id, span) to ExpressionNode, but
the extra AliasExpanded node helps to capture downstream error by a single
.map_err() call.
Supported values are,
- `none` for no author information,
- `full` for both the name and email,
- `name` for just the name,
- `username` for username part of the email,
- (default) `email` (or any other gibberish for that matter) for the full email.
The added expect_arguments() is basically a copy from the template_parser.
I'll reimplement it to support keyword arguments, so I don't care much about
the current implementation.
I leave expect_no/one_argument() as wrappers because parsing 0/1 arguments
is pretty common.
Error messages are slightly changed. I personally prefer not to add extra
code for singular/plural handling, but if we do, I'll add 'if N == 1' case.
