On "jj checkout", description of the working-copy commit is empty, and the
working-copy parent provides more information. It might be a bit verbose to
print parent summary on every history rewriting, but I think that's okay.
@joyously found `o` confusing because it's a valid change id prefix. I
don't have much preference, but `●` seems fine. The "ascii",
"ascii-large", and "legacy" graph styles still use "o".
I didn't change `@` since it seems useful to have that match the
symbol used on the CLI. I don't think we want to have users do
something like `jj co ◎-`.
This eliminates ambiguous parsing between "func()" and "expr ()".
I chose "++" as template concatenation operator in case we want to add
bit-wise negate operator. It's also easier to find/replace than "~".
We have moved from saying "committing the working copy" towards saying
"snapshotting the working copy". More importantly, the option also
means that we don't update the working copy at the end. I went with
the `--ignore-working-copy` name suggested by Ilya. I also updated the
documentation of the option.
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.
This should fix the panic in the case reported in #1107. It's a bit
hard to reproduce because we normally notice the missing commit when
we snapshot the working copy, but it's possible to reproduce it using
`--no-commit-working-copy`.
I suspect the added test is too brittle because it checks the exact
error message. On the other hand, it might be useful to have one test
case like this so we catch accidental changes in the format.
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 the test case `test_branch_mutually_exclusive_actions`, we weren't actually testing anything useful, because the interface has since changed to use subcommands instead of options. The test has been deleted in this commit, and `TestEnvironment::jj_cmd_cli_error` has been changed to return a `#[must_use]` `String` representing stderr. I also added `#[must_use]` to `TestEnvironment::jj_cmd_failure` while I was here.
If the source commit becomes empty as a result of
`move/squash/unsquash`, we abandon it. However, perhaps we shouldn't
do that if the source commit is a working-copy commit because
working-copy commits are often work-in-progress commits.
The background for this change is that @arxanas had just started a new
change and had set a description on it, and then decided to make some
changes in the working copy that should be in the parent
commit. Running `jj squash` then abandoned the working-copy commit,
resuling in the description getting lost.
It can be confusing that some commits (typically the working copy)
don't have a description. Let's show a placeholder text in such cases.
I chose the format to match the "(no email configured)" message we
already have.
These tests are very similar to the `jj restore -i` tests because `jj
edit -r $REV` is a specialized version of `jj restore -i --from $REV-
--to $REV` on non-merge commits.
