ok/jj
1
0
Fork 0
forked from mirrors/jj
Code Pull requests Activity
jj/cli/tests/test_bookmark_command.rs

1837 lines
71 KiB
Rust
Raw Normal View History

copyright: change from "Google LLC" to "The Jujutsu Authors" 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.
2022-11-26 23:57:50 +00:00
// Copyright 2022 The Jujutsu Authors
cli: make `jj branch --revision/--delete/--forget` mutually-exclusive
2022-05-02 20:03:34 +00:00
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
use std::path::Path;
tests: add helper method to capture both stdout/stderr outputs This pattern is common, and should have a shorthand so that we can easily add warning messages.
2023-07-03 10:04:31 +00:00
use crate::common::TestEnvironment;
cli: make `jj branch --revision/--delete/--forget` mutually-exclusive
2022-05-02 20:03:34 +00:00
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_multiple_names() {
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo", "bar"]);
tests: add helper method to capture both stdout/stderr outputs This pattern is common, and should have a shorthand so that we can easily add warning messages.
2023-07-03 10:04:31 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Created 2 bookmarks pointing to qpvuntsm 230dd059 bar foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
Hint: Use -r to specify the target revision.
tests: add helper method to capture both stdout/stderr outputs This pattern is common, and should have a shorthand so that we can easily add warning messages.
2023-07-03 10:04:31 +00:00
"###);
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: switch default graph style to be Sapling's curved style We seem to quite unanimously prefer this style, so let's make the default.
2023-02-09 02:53:47 +00:00
@ bar foo 230dd059e1b0
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
"###);
tests: don't create new branch by "jj branch set"
2023-11-10 00:56:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "foo", "bar"]);
cli: send status messages to stderr, specify stdout/stderr explicitly Many of &mut UI can be changed to immutable borrows, but I'm not gonna update them in this patch.
2023-10-10 11:07:06 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 2 bookmarks to zsuskuln 8bb159bc bar foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
Hint: Use -r to specify the target revision.
branch forget & delete: report if forgot/deleted multiple branches
2023-06-29 02:36:08 +00:00
"###);
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
tests: don't create new branch by "jj branch set"
2023-11-10 00:56:18 +00:00
@ bar foo 8bb159bc30a9
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ 230dd059e1b0
◆ 000000000000
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
"###);
cli: include branch names in bulk branch creation/update warning This will probably help notice missing -r flag. Maybe we can also warn if one of the branch names looks like a revset. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2555
2023-11-09 01:33:57 +00:00
tests: don't create new branch by "jj branch set"
2023-11-10 00:56:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "foo", "bar", "foo"]);
cli: include branch names in bulk branch creation/update warning This will probably help notice missing -r flag. Maybe we can also warn if one of the branch names looks like a revset. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2555
2023-11-09 01:33:57 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Deleted 2 bookmarks.
tests: don't create new branch by "jj branch set"
2023-11-10 00:56:18 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
@ 8bb159bc30a9
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ 230dd059e1b0
◆ 000000000000
cli: include branch names in bulk branch creation/update warning This will probably help notice missing -r flag. Maybe we can also warn if one of the branch names looks like a revset. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2555
2023-11-09 01:33:57 +00:00
"###);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
// Hint should be omitted if -r is specified
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "-r@-", "foo", "bar"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Created 2 bookmarks pointing to qpvuntsm 230dd059 bar foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
"###);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
// Create and move with explicit -r
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) =
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "-r@", "bar", "baz"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Created 1 bookmarks pointing to zsuskuln 8bb159bc bar baz | (empty) (no description set)
Moved 1 bookmarks to zsuskuln 8bb159bc bar baz | (empty) (no description set)
Hint: Consider using `jj bookmark move` if your intention was to move existing bookmarks.
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
"###);
// Noop changes should not be included in the stats
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "-r@", "foo", "bar", "baz"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to zsuskuln 8bb159bc bar baz foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
"###);
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
}
cmd: prohibit creating branches at the root commit Such branches lead to confusing errors on git expoert or push.
2023-04-04 02:02:12 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_at_root() {
cmd: prohibit creating branches at the root commit Such branches lead to confusing errors on git expoert or push.
2023-04-04 02:02:12 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cmd: prohibit creating branches at the root commit Such branches lead to confusing errors on git expoert or push.
2023-04-04 02:02:12 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "fred", "-r=root()"]);
cli: make it allowed to have a branch on the root commit again Closes #1529.
2023-09-03 21:07:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Created 1 bookmarks pointing to zzzzzzzz 00000000 fred | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
"###);
cli: make it allowed to have a branch on the root commit again Closes #1529.
2023-09-03 21:07:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
cli: send status messages to stderr, specify stdout/stderr explicitly Many of &mut UI can be changed to immutable borrows, but I'm not gonna update them in this patch.
2023-10-10 11:07:06 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cmd: prohibit creating branches at the root commit Such branches lead to confusing errors on git expoert or push.
2023-04-04 02:02:12 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
cli: send status messages to stderr, specify stdout/stderr explicitly Many of &mut UI can be changed to immutable borrows, but I'm not gonna update them in this patch.
2023-10-10 11:07:06 +00:00
Nothing changed.
cli: add "Hint: " or "Warning: " heading to almost all messages It's inconsistent that some warnings have headings and some don't, and it seems the choice is arbitrary. Let's unify the style. There are two exceptions: 1. continued line following labeled message, 2. "unrecognized response" followed by prompt.
2024-03-24 06:47:47 +00:00
Warning: Failed to export some branches:
cli: print failed git export reason for each ref Not all reasons are actionable, but we print hint in common cryptic cases.
2023-12-09 01:23:13 +00:00
fred: Ref cannot point to the root commit in Git
cmd: prohibit creating branches at the root commit Such branches lead to confusing errors on git expoert or push.
2023-04-04 02:02:12 +00:00
"###);
}
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_empty_name() {
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", ""]);
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
cargo: upgrade to clap 4.1 This includes some changes to error messages. Also, the Zsh shell completion script is now simpler to source. Fixes #1393.
2023-03-17 23:14:20 +00:00
error: a value is required for '<NAMES>...' but none was supplied
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
cargo: upgrade to clap 4.1 This includes some changes to error messages. Also, the Zsh shell completion script is now simpler to source. Fixes #1393.
2023-03-17 23:14:20 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: reject empty branch name consistently by "set" Though "branch set" can't create new branch, this should provide a better error message.
2024-06-20 04:15:50 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", ""]);
cli: branch: reject empty branch name consistently by "set" Though "branch set" can't create new branch, this should provide a better error message.
2024-06-20 04:15:50 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
error: a value is required for '<NAMES>...' but none was supplied
For more information, try '--help'.
"###);
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
}
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_move() {
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
// Set up remote
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
git2::Repository::init_bare(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "foo"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No such bookmark: foo
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
cli: disallow to create new branch by "jj branch set" Per discussion in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2555. I'm okay with either way, but it's confusing if we had "branch create" and "branch set" and both of these could create a new branch.
2023-11-10 00:38:03 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "foo"]);
cli: branch: make "set" do upsert as before Since "set <thing>" often adds a <thing> if not exists, it make some sense that "branch set" does upsert. The current "branch set" use case is now covered by "branch move", so it's okay to change the "set" behavior. If new branch is created by "branch set", status message and hint will be printed to help migration. The user should be able to undo creation if it was a mistake. Closes #3584
2024-06-21 09:00:04 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Created 1 bookmarks pointing to qpvuntsm 230dd059 foo | (empty) (no description set)
Hint: Consider using `jj bookmark move` if your intention was to move existing bookmarks.
cli: branch: make "set" do upsert as before Since "set <thing>" often adds a <thing> if not exists, it make some sense that "branch set" does upsert. The current "branch set" use case is now covered by "branch move", so it's okay to change the "set" behavior. If new branch is created by "branch set", status message and hint will be printed to help migration. The user should be able to undo creation if it was a mistake. Closes #3584
2024-06-21 09:00:04 +00:00
"###);
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo"]);
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Bookmark already exists: foo
Hint: Use `jj bookmark set` to update it.
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "foo"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to mzvwutvl 167f90e7 foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
"###);
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "-r@-", "foo"]);
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Refusing to move bookmark backwards or sideways: foo
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
Hint: Use --allow-backwards to allow it.
"###);
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "set", "-r@-", "--allow-backwards", "foo"],
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to qpvuntsm 230dd059 foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "foo"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch move" It's nice to see the result of "branch move", "create", etc., and this is more important in "branch move" because the source branches can be specified in an abstracted way. I originally considered printing a list of affected branches, but it looked rather verbose. Since the destination revision is unique, we can use commit_summary template instead. This patch also removes a warning about multiple branches because the branch names are included in the commit summary. I think the hint message is good enough to signal possible mistake.
2024-07-04 09:44:43 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to mzvwutvl 167f90e7 foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch move" It's nice to see the result of "branch move", "create", etc., and this is more important in "branch move" because the source branches can be specified in an abstracted way. I originally considered printing a list of affected branches, but it looked rather verbose. Since the destination revision is unique, we can use commit_summary template instead. This patch also removes a warning about multiple branches because the branch names are included in the commit summary. I think the hint message is good enough to signal possible mistake.
2024-07-04 09:44:43 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "--to=@-", "foo"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Refusing to move bookmark backwards or sideways: foo
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
Hint: Use --allow-backwards to allow it.
"###);
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "move", "--to=@-", "--allow-backwards", "foo"],
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch move" It's nice to see the result of "branch move", "create", etc., and this is more important in "branch move" because the source branches can be specified in an abstracted way. I originally considered printing a list of affected branches, but it looked rather verbose. Since the destination revision is unique, we can use commit_summary template instead. This patch also removes a warning about multiple branches because the branch names are included in the commit summary. I think the hint message is good enough to signal possible mistake.
2024-07-04 09:44:43 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to qpvuntsm 230dd059 foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch move" It's nice to see the result of "branch move", "create", etc., and this is more important in "branch move" because the source branches can be specified in an abstracted way. I originally considered printing a list of affected branches, but it looked rather verbose. Since the destination revision is unique, we can use commit_summary template instead. This patch also removes a warning about multiple branches because the branch names are included in the commit summary. I think the hint message is good enough to signal possible mistake.
2024-07-04 09:44:43 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Delete bookmark locally, but is still tracking remote
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "@-", "-mcommit"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "push", "-r@-"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "foo"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
foo (deleted)
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@origin: qpvuntsm 1eb845f3 (empty) commit
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Deleted tracking bookmark name should still be allocated
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo"]);
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Tracked remote bookmarks exist for deleted bookmark: foo
Hint: Use `jj bookmark set` to recreate the local bookmark. Run `jj bookmark untrack 'glob:foo@*'` to disassociate them.
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
"###);
// Restoring local target shouldn't invalidate tracking state
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "foo"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to mzvwutvl 66d48752 foo* | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
foo: mzvwutvl 66d48752 (empty) (no description set)
@origin (behind by 1 commits): qpvuntsm 1eb845f3 (empty) commit
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Untracked remote bookmark shouldn't block creation of local bookmark
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "untrack", "foo@origin"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "foo"]);
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Created 1 bookmarks pointing to mzvwutvl 66d48752 foo | (empty) (no description set)
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch create" For the same reason as cdc0cc360162. This will help notice problems like wrong target revision. The warning for multiple branches is reorganized as a hint for "-r" option, which I think is the main purpose of this warning. Unlike "squash", we don't check if an argument can be parsed as a revset because branch name is usually a valid symbol expression.
2024-07-04 23:32:42 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
foo: mzvwutvl 66d48752 (empty) (no description set)
foo@origin: qpvuntsm 1eb845f3 (empty) commit
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
}
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_move_matching() {
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "a1", "a2"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "-mhead1"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "root()"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "b1"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "c1"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "-mhead2"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
@ a2781dd9ee37
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ c1 f4f38657a3dd
○ b1 f652c32197cf
│ ○ 6b5e840ea72b
│ ○ a1 a2 230dd059e1b0
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
// The default could be considered "--from=all() glob:*", but is disabled
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
error: the following required arguments were not provided:
<--from <REVISIONS>|NAMES>
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Usage: jj bookmark move <--from <REVISIONS>|NAMES>
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// No bookmarks pointing to the source revisions
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "--from=none()"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
No bookmarks to update.
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// No matching bookmarks within the source revisions
let stderr =
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "--from=::@", "glob:a?"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No matching bookmarks for patterns: a?
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
// Noop move
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "--to=a1", "a2"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
No bookmarks to update.
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
// Move from multiple revisions
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "--from=::@"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 2 bookmarks to vruxwmqv a2781dd9 b1 c1 | (empty) head2
Hint: Specify bookmark by name to update just one of the bookmarks.
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
@ b1 c1 a2781dd9ee37
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ f4f38657a3dd
○ f652c32197cf
│ ○ 6b5e840ea72b
│ ○ a1 a2 230dd059e1b0
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["undo"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Try to move multiple bookmarks, but one of them isn't fast-forward
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "move", "glob:?1"]);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Refusing to move bookmark backwards or sideways: a1
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
Hint: Use --allow-backwards to allow it.
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
@ a2781dd9ee37
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ c1 f4f38657a3dd
○ b1 f652c32197cf
│ ○ 6b5e840ea72b
│ ○ a1 a2 230dd059e1b0
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
// Select by revision and name
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "move", "--from=::a1+", "--to=a1+", "glob:?1"],
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch move" It's nice to see the result of "branch move", "create", etc., and this is more important in "branch move" because the source branches can be specified in an abstracted way. I originally considered printing a list of affected branches, but it looked rather verbose. Since the destination revision is unique, we can use commit_summary template instead. This patch also removes a warning about multiple branches because the branch names are included in the commit summary. I think the hint message is good enough to signal possible mistake.
2024-07-04 09:44:43 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to kkmpptxz 6b5e840e a1 | (empty) head1
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch move" It's nice to see the result of "branch move", "create", etc., and this is more important in "branch move" because the source branches can be specified in an abstracted way. I originally considered printing a list of affected branches, but it looked rather verbose. Since the destination revision is unique, we can use commit_summary template instead. This patch also removes a warning about multiple branches because the branch names are included in the commit summary. I think the hint message is good enough to signal possible mistake.
2024-07-04 09:44:43 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
@ a2781dd9ee37
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ c1 f4f38657a3dd
○ b1 f652c32197cf
│ ○ a1 6b5e840ea72b
│ ○ a2 230dd059e1b0
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: branch: add "move" command that can update branches by revset or name This basically supersedes the current "branch set" command. The plan is to turn "branch set" into an "upsert" command, and deprecate "branch create". (#3584) Maybe we can also add "branch set --new" flag to only allow creation of new branches. One reason behind this proposed change is that "set" usually allows both "creation" and "update". However, we also need a typo-safe version of "set" to not create new branches by accident. "jj branch move" is useful when advancing ancestor branches. Let's say you've added a couple of commits on top of an existing PR branch, you can advance the branch by "jj branch move --from 'heads(::@- & branches())' --to @-". If this pattern is super common, maybe we can add --advance flag for short. One drawback of this change is that "git branch --move" is equivalent to "jj branch rename". I personally don't find this is confusing, but it's true that "move" sometimes means "rename".
2024-06-16 06:40:53 +00:00
"###);
tests: add test for moving branch forward and backward
2023-11-09 02:18:53 +00:00
}
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_move_conflicting() {
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
let get_log = || {
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let template = r#"separate(" ", description.first_line(), bookmarks)"#;
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
let (stdout, _stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["log", "-T", template]);
stdout
};
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "root()", "-mA0"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "root()", "-mB0"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "root()", "-mC0"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "description(A0)", "-mA1"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Set up conflicting bookmark.
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "create", "-rdescription(A0)", "foo"],
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&[
"bookmark",
"create",
"--at-op=@-",
"-rdescription(B0)",
"foo",
],
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log(), @r###"
@ A1
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ A0 foo??
│ ○ C0
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
│ ○ B0 foo??
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Can't move the bookmark to C0 since it's sibling.
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
let stderr =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "-rdescription(C0)", "foo"]);
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Refusing to move bookmark backwards or sideways: foo
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
Hint: Use --allow-backwards to allow it.
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Can move the bookmark to A1 since it's descendant of A0. It's not
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
// descendant of B0, though.
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "set", "-rdescription(A1)", "foo"]);
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Moved 1 bookmarks to mzvwutvl 9328d344 foo | (empty) A1
cli: show commit summary at end of "branch set" For the same reason as the previous commit. Created and moved stats are printed separately because it's unusual to do both within one "branch set" invocation.
2024-07-04 23:40:53 +00:00
"###);
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log(), @r###"
@ A1 foo
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ A0
│ ○ C0
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
│ ○ B0
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆
tests: add test for moving conflicting branch to one of descendants
2023-11-10 05:40:49 +00:00
"###);
}
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_rename() {
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
// Set up remote
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
git2::Repository::init_bare(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "rename", "bnoexist", "blocal"]);
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No such bookmark: bnoexist
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
"###);
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "-m=commit-0"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "blocal"]);
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "rename", "blocal", "blocal1"]);
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "-m=commit-1"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "bexist"]);
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "rename", "blocal1", "bexist"]);
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: Bookmark already exists: bexist
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
"###);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "-m=commit-2"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "bremote"]);
Issue warning if renaming branch with a remote tracking branch.
2024-01-04 14:55:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "push", "-b=bremote"]);
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "rename", "bremote", "bremote2"]);
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Warning: Tracked remote bookmarks for bookmark bremote were not renamed.
Hint: To rename the bookmark on the remote, you can `jj git push --bookmark bremote` first (to delete it on the remote), and then `jj git push --bookmark bremote2`. `jj git push --all` would also be sufficient.
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
"###);
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "rename", "bremote2", "bremote"]);
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Warning: Tracked remote bookmarks for bookmark bremote exist.
Hint: Run `jj bookmark untrack 'glob:bremote@*'` to disassociate them.
cli: branch: assume deleted tracking branch name is still allocated While explaining branch tracking behavior, I find it's bad UX that a deleted branch can be re-"create"d with tracking state preserved. It's rather a "set" operation. Since deleted tracking branch is still listed, I think it's better to assume that the local branch name is reserved. https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/3871 Renaming to deleted tracking branch is still allowed (with warning) because the "rename" command can't handle tracked remotes very well. If it were banned, bad rename couldn't be reverted by using "jj branch rename". It would be confusing if "rename a b" succeeded with warning, but the following "rename b a" failed.
2024-06-14 09:16:23 +00:00
"###);
Implement a `rename` subcommand for the `branch` command. This is really a simple change that does the following in a transaction: * Set the new branch name to point to the same commit as the old branch name. * Set the old branch name to point to no commit (hence deleting the old name). Before it starts, it confirms that the new branch name is not already in use.
2023-10-18 20:00:10 +00:00
}
branch: ignore git tracking branches for rename warning Prevents a warning from being printed when renaming branches in a colocated repo, since git tracking branches were being considered as remote tracking branches.
2024-07-18 00:52:49 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_rename_colocated() {
branch: ignore git tracking branches for rename warning Prevents a warning from being printed when renaming branches in a colocated repo, since git tracking branches were being considered as remote tracking branches.
2024-07-18 00:52:49 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo", "--colocate"]);
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "-m=commit-0"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "blocal"]);
branch: ignore git tracking branches for rename warning Prevents a warning from being printed when renaming branches in a colocated repo, since git tracking branches were being considered as remote tracking branches.
2024-07-18 00:52:49 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Make sure that git tracking bookmarks don't cause a warning
branch: ignore git tracking branches for rename warning Prevents a warning from being printed when renaming branches in a colocated repo, since git tracking branches were being considered as remote tracking branches.
2024-07-18 00:52:49 +00:00
let (_stdout, stderr) =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "rename", "blocal", "blocal1"]);
branch: ignore git tracking branches for rename warning Prevents a warning from being printed when renaming branches in a colocated repo, since git tracking branches were being considered as remote tracking branches.
2024-07-18 00:52:49 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
}
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_forget_glob() {
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo-1"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "bar-2"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo-3"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo-4"]);
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: switch default graph style to be Sapling's curved style We seem to quite unanimously prefer this style, so let's make the default.
2023-02-09 02:53:47 +00:00
@ bar-2 foo-1 foo-3 foo-4 230dd059e1b0
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) =
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "glob:foo-[1-3]"]);
cli: send status messages to stderr, specify stdout/stderr explicitly Many of &mut UI can be changed to immutable borrows, but I'm not gonna update them in this patch.
2023-10-10 11:07:06 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Forgot 2 bookmarks.
branch forget & delete: report if forgot/deleted multiple branches
2023-06-29 02:36:08 +00:00
"###);
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["undo"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) =
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "glob:foo-[1-3]"]);
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Forgot 2 bookmarks.
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
"###);
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: switch default graph style to be Sapling's curved style We seem to quite unanimously prefer this style, so let's make the default.
2023-02-09 02:53:47 +00:00
@ bar-2 foo-4 230dd059e1b0
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Forgetting a bookmark via both explicit name and glob pattern, or with
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
// multiple glob patterns, shouldn't produce an error.
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "forget", "foo-4", "glob:foo-*", "glob:foo-*"],
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Forgot 1 bookmarks.
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
"###);
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: switch default graph style to be Sapling's curved style We seem to quite unanimously prefer this style, so let's make the default.
2023-02-09 02:53:47 +00:00
@ bar-2 230dd059e1b0
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
"###);
// Malformed glob
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "glob:foo-[1-3"]);
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
cli: branch: drop support for deprecated --glob option It's been 8 months since the option got deprecated by 8dbe12da2a6d.
2024-06-20 11:20:01 +00:00
error: invalid value 'glob:foo-[1-3' for '<NAMES>...': Pattern syntax error near position 4: invalid range pattern
cli: use StringPattern to find branches to delete/forget The error message for unmatched patterns is adjusted so that it can be applied to both exact and glob patterns.
2023-10-19 18:49:00 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
"###);
`branch forget`: error message if no globs match
2023-06-24 05:52:00 +00:00
// We get an error if none of the globs match anything
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "forget", "glob:bar*", "glob:baz*", "glob:boom*"],
`branch forget`: error message if no globs match
2023-06-24 05:52:00 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No matching bookmarks for patterns: baz*, boom*
`branch forget`: error message if no globs match
2023-06-24 05:52:00 +00:00
"###);
feat(branch): support `jj branch forget --glob`
2022-11-22 23:58:04 +00:00
}
cli: disallow creating branch with empty name If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out. I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing repos.
2022-11-28 14:17:33 +00:00
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_delete_glob() {
// Set up a git repo with a bookmark and a jj repo that has it as a remote.
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
let git_repo = git2::Repository::init_bare(git_repo_path).unwrap();
let mut tree_builder = git_repo.treebuilder(None).unwrap();
let file_oid = git_repo.blob(b"content").unwrap();
tree_builder
.insert("file", file_oid, git2::FileMode::Blob.into())
.unwrap();
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "-m=commit"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo-1"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "bar-2"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo-3"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo-4"]);
// Push to create remote-tracking bookmarks
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "push", "--all"]);
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@ bar-2 foo-1 foo-3 foo-4 312a98d6f27b
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) =
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "glob:foo-[1-3]"]);
cli: send status messages to stderr, specify stdout/stderr explicitly Many of &mut UI can be changed to immutable borrows, but I'm not gonna update them in this patch.
2023-10-10 11:07:06 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Deleted 2 bookmarks.
branch forget & delete: report if forgot/deleted multiple branches
2023-06-29 02:36:08 +00:00
"###);
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["undo"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) =
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "glob:foo-[1-3]"]);
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Deleted 2 bookmarks.
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
"###);
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@ bar-2 foo-1@origin foo-3@origin foo-4 312a98d6f27b
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// We get an error if none of the globs match live bookmarks. Unlike `jj
// bookmark forget`, it's not allowed to delete already deleted bookmarks.
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "glob:foo-[1-3]"]);
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No matching bookmarks for patterns: foo-[1-3]
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Deleting a bookmark via both explicit name and glob pattern, or with
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
// multiple glob patterns, shouldn't produce an error.
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "delete", "foo-4", "glob:foo-*", "glob:foo-*"],
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Deleted 1 bookmarks.
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
"###);
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@ bar-2 foo-1@origin foo-3@origin foo-4@origin 312a98d6f27b
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// The deleted bookmarks are still there
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
bar-2: qpvuntsm 312a98d6 (empty) commit
@origin: qpvuntsm 312a98d6 (empty) commit
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
foo-1 (deleted)
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@origin: qpvuntsm 312a98d6 (empty) commit
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
foo-3 (deleted)
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@origin: qpvuntsm 312a98d6 (empty) commit
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
foo-4 (deleted)
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
@origin: qpvuntsm 312a98d6 (empty) commit
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
"###);
// Malformed glob
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "glob:foo-[1-3"]);
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
cli: branch: drop support for deprecated --glob option It's been 8 months since the option got deprecated by 8dbe12da2a6d.
2024-06-20 11:20:01 +00:00
error: invalid value 'glob:foo-[1-3' for '<NAMES>...': Pattern syntax error near position 4: invalid range pattern
cli: add kind:pattern syntax to branch delete/forget commands The parse rule is lax compared to revset. We could require the pattern to be quoted, but that would mean glob patterns have to be quoted like 'glob:"foo*"'.
2023-10-19 20:17:58 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
"###);
// Unknown pattern kind
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let stderr =
test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "whatever:bookmark"]);
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
error: invalid value 'whatever:bookmark' for '<NAMES>...': Invalid string pattern kind "whatever:"
cli: use StringPattern to find branches to delete/forget The error message for unmatched patterns is adjusted so that it can be applied to both exact and glob patterns.
2023-10-19 18:49:00 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
str_util: add regex pattern This patch adds minimal support for the regex pattern. We might have to add "regex-i:" for completeness, but it can be achieved by "regex:'(?i)..'".
2024-07-21 12:44:43 +00:00
Hint: Try prefixing with one of `exact:`, `glob:`, `regex:`, or `substring:`
`branch delete`: allow deleting globs of branches
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
"###);
}
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_delete_export() {
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo"]);
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "foo"]);
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "list", "--all-remotes"]);
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
foo (deleted)
@git: rlvkpnrz 65b6b74e (empty) (no description set)
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be deleted from the underlying Git repo on the next `jj git export`.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: rephrase @git branch with no local counterpart as "deleted" Since forgotten branches are now removed at all, the only situation where @git branch persists is that the branch got removed but is not exported yet.
2023-09-29 07:40:41 +00:00
"###);
}
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_forget_export() {
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "foo"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
foo: rlvkpnrz 65b6b74e (empty) (no description set)
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Exporting the bookmark to git creates a local-git tracking bookmark
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "foo"]);
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Forgot 1 bookmarks.
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Forgetting a bookmark deletes local and remote-tracking bookmarks including
// the corresponding git-tracking bookmark.
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @"");
revsets: stop `jj` parsing `br` as a git_ref `refs/heads/br` Use `br@git` instead. Before, if there is not a local branch `br`, jj tried to resolve it as a git ref `refs/heads/br`. Unchanged from before, `br` can still be resolved as a tag `refs/tag/br`.
2023-06-12 18:59:15 +00:00
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["log", "-r=foo", "--no-graph"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
Error: Revision "foo" doesn't exist
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// `jj git export` will delete the bookmark from git. In a colocated repo,
// this will happen automatically immediately after a `jj bookmark forget`.
// This is demonstrated in `test_git_colocated_bookmark_forget` in
git: on deserialize/import/export, copy refs/heads/* to remote named "git" I've added a boolean flag to the store to ensure that the migration never runs more than once after the view gets "op restore"-d. I'll probably reorganize the branches structure to support non-tracking branches later, but updating the storage format in a single commit would be too involved. If jj is downgraded, these "git" remote refs would be exported to the Git repo. Users might have to remove them manually.
2023-09-25 11:05:24 +00:00
// test_git_colocated.rs
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @"");
tests: demo `jj branch forget` behavior in colocated repos
2023-06-12 01:04:55 +00:00
}
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_forget_fetched_bookmark() {
// Much of this test is borrowed from `test_git_fetch_remote_only_bookmark` in
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
// test_git_fetch.rs
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Set up a git repo with a bookmark and a jj repo that has it as a remote.
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: set git_settings.auto_local_branch where it matters
2023-12-16 10:00:14 +00:00
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
test_branch_command: use bare repositories Otherwise, those tests cannot use `jj git push`. This is an issue with a test in the next commit, and I don't want people to copy these tests and be surprised.
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
let git_repo = git2::Repository::init_bare(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
let signature =
git2::Signature::new("Some One", "some.one@example.com", &git2::Time::new(0, 0)).unwrap();
let mut tree_builder = git_repo.treebuilder(None).unwrap();
let file_oid = git_repo.blob(b"content").unwrap();
tree_builder
.insert("file", file_oid, git2::FileMode::Blob.into())
.unwrap();
let tree_oid = tree_builder.write().unwrap();
let tree = git_repo.find_tree(tree_oid).unwrap();
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Create a commit and a bookmark in the git repo
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
let first_git_repo_commit = git_repo
.commit(
Some("refs/heads/feature1"),
&signature,
&signature,
"message",
&tree,
&[],
)
.unwrap();
// Fetch normally
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch", "--remote=origin"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
feature1: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
"###);
git export: export deletion of forgotten remote-tracking branches
2023-06-27 22:18:15 +00:00
// TEST 1: with export-import
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Forget the bookmark
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "feature1"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @"");
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
// At this point `jj git export && jj git import` does *not* recreate the
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// bookmark. This behavior is important in colocated repos, as otherwise a
// forgotten bookmark would be immediately resurrected.
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
//
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Technically, this is because `jj bookmark forget` preserved
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
// the ref in jj view's `git_refs` tracking the local git repo's remote-tracking
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// bookmark.
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
// TODO: Show that jj git push is also a no-op
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "import"]);
cli: send status messages to stderr, specify stdout/stderr explicitly Many of &mut UI can be changed to immutable borrows, but I'm not gonna update them in this patch.
2023-10-10 11:07:06 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
Nothing changed.
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @"");
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
git export: export deletion of forgotten remote-tracking branches
2023-06-27 22:18:15 +00:00
// We can fetch feature1 again.
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch", "--remote=origin"]);
git export: export deletion of forgotten remote-tracking branches
2023-06-27 22:18:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
branch: feature1@origin [new] tracked
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
feature1: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
git export: export deletion of forgotten remote-tracking branches
2023-06-27 22:18:15 +00:00
"###);
// TEST 2: No export/import (otherwise the same as test 1)
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "feature1"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @"");
git fetch: do a `git export` of deleted branches before fetch
2023-06-30 02:20:00 +00:00
// Fetch works even without the export-import
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch", "--remote=origin"]);
git fetch: do a `git export` of deleted branches before fetch
2023-06-30 02:20:00 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
branch: feature1@origin [new] tracked
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
feature1: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// TEST 3: fetch bookmark that was moved & forgotten
git export: export deletion of forgotten remote-tracking branches
2023-06-27 22:18:15 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Move the bookmark in the git repo.
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
git_repo
.commit(
Some("refs/heads/feature1"),
&signature,
&signature,
"another message",
&tree,
&[&git_repo.find_commit(first_git_repo_commit).unwrap()],
)
.unwrap();
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "feature1"]);
git fetch: do a `git export` of deleted branches before fetch
2023-06-30 02:20:00 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Forgot 1 bookmarks.
cli: branch: print stats even if just one branch is updated We usually print stats at the end of mutable operation, and I think these messages are useful even if N = 1. I understand that "Deleted N" (N > 1) is unusual and the original intent of these messages was to signal possible mistakes. However, I don't think printing N=1 stats would nullify the original purpose. No emptiness check is needed for delete/forget, but names can be empty in track/untrack because of noop changes.
2024-06-21 08:41:53 +00:00
"###);
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Fetching a moved bookmark does not create a conflict
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch", "--remote=origin"]);
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
branch: feature1@origin [new] tracked
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
feature1: ooosovrs 38aefb17 (empty) another message
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: ooosovrs 38aefb17 (empty) another message
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
"###);
}
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_forget_deleted_or_nonexistent_bookmark() {
// Much of this test is borrowed from `test_git_fetch_remote_only_bookmark` in
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
// test_git_fetch.rs
// ======== Beginning of test setup ========
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Set up a git repo with a bookmark and a jj repo that has it as a remote.
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: set git_settings.auto_local_branch where it matters
2023-12-16 10:00:14 +00:00
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
test_branch_command: use bare repositories Otherwise, those tests cannot use `jj git push`. This is an issue with a test in the next commit, and I don't want people to copy these tests and be surprised.
2023-06-24 06:27:48 +00:00
let git_repo = git2::Repository::init_bare(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
let signature =
git2::Signature::new("Some One", "some.one@example.com", &git2::Time::new(0, 0)).unwrap();
let mut tree_builder = git_repo.treebuilder(None).unwrap();
let file_oid = git_repo.blob(b"content").unwrap();
tree_builder
.insert("file", file_oid, git2::FileMode::Blob.into())
.unwrap();
let tree_oid = tree_builder.write().unwrap();
let tree = git_repo.find_tree(tree_oid).unwrap();
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Create a commit and a bookmark in the git repo
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
git_repo
.commit(
Some("refs/heads/feature1"),
&signature,
&signature,
"message",
&tree,
&[],
)
.unwrap();
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Fetch and then delete the bookmark
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch", "--remote=origin"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "feature1"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
feature1 (deleted)
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
@origin: mzyxwzks 9f01a0e0 message
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
"###);
// ============ End of test setup ============
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// We can forget a deleted bookmark
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "feature1"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @"");
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Can't forget a non-existent bookmark
let stderr = test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "forget", "i_do_not_exist"]);
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No such bookmark: i_do_not_exist
test_branch_command: demo inability to forget deleted branch
2023-06-24 04:40:54 +00:00
"###);
}
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_track_untrack() {
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
// Set up remote
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
let git_repo = git2::Repository::init(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
let create_remote_commit = |message: &str, data: &[u8], ref_names: &[&str]| {
let signature =
git2::Signature::new("Some One", "some.one@example.com", &git2::Time::new(0, 0))
.unwrap();
let mut tree_builder = git_repo.treebuilder(None).unwrap();
let file_oid = git_repo.blob(data).unwrap();
tree_builder
.insert("file", file_oid, git2::FileMode::Blob.into())
.unwrap();
let tree_oid = tree_builder.write().unwrap();
let tree = git_repo.find_tree(tree_oid).unwrap();
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Create commit and bookmarks in the remote
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
let git_commit_oid = git_repo
.commit(None, &signature, &signature, message, &tree, &[])
.unwrap();
for name in ref_names {
git_repo.reference(name, git_commit_oid, true, "").unwrap();
}
};
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Fetch new commit without auto tracking. No local bookmarks should be
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
// created.
create_remote_commit(
"commit 1",
b"content 1",
&[
"refs/heads/main",
"refs/heads/feature1",
"refs/heads/feature2",
],
);
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = false");
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch"]);
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
branch: feature1@origin [new] untracked
branch: feature2@origin [new] untracked
branch: main@origin [new] untracked
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature1@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
feature2@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
main@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ feature1@origin feature2@origin main@origin 7b33f6295eda
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
│ @ 230dd059e1b0
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Track new bookmark. Local bookmark should be created.
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "track", "feature1@origin", "main@origin"],
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature1: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature2@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
main: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Track existing bookmark. Local bookmark should result in conflict.
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "feature2"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "feature2@origin"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature1: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature2 (conflicted):
+ qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
+ sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
@origin (behind by 1 commits): sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
main: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Untrack existing and locally-deleted bookmarks. Branch targets should be
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
// unchanged
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "feature2"]);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "untrack", "feature1@origin", "feature2@origin"],
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature1: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
feature1@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
feature2@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
main: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ feature1 feature1@origin feature2@origin main 7b33f6295eda
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
│ @ 230dd059e1b0
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Fetch new commit. Only tracking bookmark "main" should be merged.
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
create_remote_commit(
"commit 2",
b"content 2",
&[
"refs/heads/main",
"refs/heads/feature1",
"refs/heads/feature2",
],
);
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch"]);
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
branch: feature1@origin [updated] untracked
branch: feature2@origin [updated] untracked
branch: main@origin [updated] tracked
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature1: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
feature1@origin: mmqqkyyt 40dabdaf commit 2
feature2@origin: mmqqkyyt 40dabdaf commit 2
main: mmqqkyyt 40dabdaf commit 2
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: mmqqkyyt 40dabdaf commit 2
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ feature1@origin feature2@origin main 40dabdaf4abe
│ ○ feature1 7b33f6295eda
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
├─╯
│ @ 230dd059e1b0
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Fetch new commit with auto tracking. Tracking bookmark "main" and new
// bookmark "feature3" should be merged.
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
create_remote_commit(
"commit 3",
b"content 3",
&[
"refs/heads/main",
"refs/heads/feature1",
"refs/heads/feature2",
"refs/heads/feature3",
],
);
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
branch: feature1@origin [updated] untracked
branch: feature2@origin [updated] untracked
branch: feature3@origin [new] tracked
branch: main@origin [updated] tracked
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
Abandoned 1 commits that are no longer reachable.
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
feature1: sptzoqmo 7b33f629 commit 1
feature1@origin: wwnpyzpo 3f0f86fa commit 3
feature2@origin: wwnpyzpo 3f0f86fa commit 3
feature3: wwnpyzpo 3f0f86fa commit 3
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: wwnpyzpo 3f0f86fa commit 3
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
main: wwnpyzpo 3f0f86fa commit 3
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
@origin: wwnpyzpo 3f0f86fa commit 3
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_log_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ feature1@origin feature2@origin feature3 main 3f0f86fa0e57
│ ○ feature1 7b33f6295eda
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
├─╯
│ @ 230dd059e1b0
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
}
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_track_conflict() {
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
git2::Repository::init_bare(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "main"]);
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["describe", "-m", "a"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "push", "-b", "main"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "untrack", "main@origin"]);
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&["describe", "-m", "b", "-r", "main", "--ignore-immutable"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "main@origin"]);
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Started tracking 1 remote bookmarks.
commit_builder: reset author timestamp on discardable commits It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began or finished. This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty commits with no description) by the current user have their author timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description or becomes non-empty.
2024-06-23 22:20:33 +00:00
main (conflicted):
+ qpvuntsm e802c4f8 (empty) b
+ qpvuntsm hidden 427890ea (empty) a
@origin (behind by 1 commits): qpvuntsm hidden 427890ea (empty) a
"###);
cli: make jj branch track show conflicts
2024-05-14 16:20:37 +00:00
}
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_track_untrack_patterns() {
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
// Set up remote
let git_repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("git-repo");
let git_repo = git2::Repository::init(git_repo_path).unwrap();
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&["git", "remote", "add", "origin", "../git-repo"],
);
// Create remote commit
let signature =
git2::Signature::new("Some One", "some.one@example.com", &git2::Time::new(0, 0)).unwrap();
let mut tree_builder = git_repo.treebuilder(None).unwrap();
let file_oid = git_repo.blob(b"content").unwrap();
tree_builder
.insert("file", file_oid, git2::FileMode::Blob.into())
.unwrap();
let tree_oid = tree_builder.write().unwrap();
let tree = git_repo.find_tree(tree_oid).unwrap();
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Create commit and bookmarks in the remote
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
let git_commit_oid = git_repo
.commit(None, &signature, &signature, "commit", &tree, &[])
.unwrap();
for name in ["refs/heads/feature1", "refs/heads/feature2"] {
git_repo.reference(name, git_commit_oid, true, "").unwrap();
}
// Fetch new commit without auto tracking
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = false");
let (_stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "fetch"]);
cli: list new remote branches during git fetch
2024-02-13 22:17:05 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
branch: feature1@origin [new] untracked
branch: feature2@origin [new] untracked
"###);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Track local bookmark
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "main"]);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_cli_error(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "main"]), @r###"
error: invalid value 'main' for '<BRANCH@REMOTE>...': remote bookmark must be specified in bookmark@remote form
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Track/untrack unknown bookmark
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "main@origin"]), @r###"
Error: No such remote bookmark: main@origin
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "untrack", "main@origin"]), @r###"
Error: No such remote bookmark: main@origin
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "glob:maine@*"]), @r###"
Error: No matching remote bookmarks for patterns: maine@*
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
"###);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "untrack", "main@origin", "glob:main@o*"],
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
), @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Error: No matching remote bookmarks for patterns: main@origin, main@o*
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
"###);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Track already tracked bookmark
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "feature1@origin"]);
let (_, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "feature1@origin"]);
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Warning: Remote bookmark already tracked: feature1@origin
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
Nothing changed.
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Untrack non-tracking bookmark
let (_, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "untrack", "feature2@origin"]);
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Warning: Remote bookmark not tracked yet: feature2@origin
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
Nothing changed.
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Untrack Git-tracking bookmark
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["git", "export"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "untrack", "main@git"]);
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Warning: Git-tracking bookmark cannot be untracked: main@git
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
Nothing changed.
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: do not error out on re-track/untrack, show warning instead If we add glob support, users will probably want to do something like 'jj branch untrack glob:"*@origin"'. It would be annoying if the command failed just because one of the remote branches has already been untracked. Since branch tracking/untracking is idempotent, it's safe to continue in those cases.
2023-10-20 04:14:09 +00:00
feature1: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
@git: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
@origin: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
feature2@origin: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
main: qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
@git: qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
"###);
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
// Untrack by pattern
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "untrack", "glob:*@*"]);
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Warning: Git-tracking bookmark cannot be untracked: feature1@git
Warning: Remote bookmark not tracked yet: feature2@origin
Warning: Git-tracking bookmark cannot be untracked: main@git
Stopped tracking 1 remote bookmarks.
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
feature1: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
@git: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
feature1@origin: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
feature2@origin: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
main: qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
@git: qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
"###);
// Track by pattern
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (_, stderr) =
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "track", "glob:feature?@origin"]);
cli: show stats if multiple branches are tracked/untracked Just like the other branch commands.
2023-10-20 22:09:29 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Started tracking 2 remote bookmarks.
cli: show stats if multiple branches are tracked/untracked Just like the other branch commands.
2023-10-20 22:09:29 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: allow to select branches to track/untrack by string pattern
2023-10-19 21:40:58 +00:00
feature1: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
@git: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
@origin: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
feature2: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
@origin: omvolwpu 1336caed commit
main: qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
@git: qpvuntsm 230dd059 (empty) (no description set)
"###);
cli: add API and branch subcommand to track/untrack remote branches This patch adds MutableRepo::track_remote_branch() as we'll probably need to track the default branch on "jj git clone". untrack_remote_branch() is also added for consistency.
2023-10-12 18:29:53 +00:00
}
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_list() {
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: set git_settings.auto_local_branch where it matters
2023-12-16 10:00:14 +00:00
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
// Initialize remote refs
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "remote"]);
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
let remote_path = test_env.env_root().join("remote");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
for bookmark in [
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
"remote-sync",
"remote-unsync",
"remote-untrack",
"remote-delete",
] {
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", bookmark]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["bookmark", "create", bookmark]);
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
}
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["git", "export"]);
// Initialize local refs
let mut remote_git_path = remote_path;
remote_git_path.extend([".jj", "repo", "store", "git"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
test_env.env_root(),
&["git", "clone", remote_git_path.to_str().unwrap(), "local"],
);
let local_path = test_env.env_root().join("local");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "local-only"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "create", "local-only"]);
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
// Mutate refs in local repository
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "remote-delete"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "remote-untrack"]);
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "untrack", "remote-untrack@origin"],
);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
&["bookmark", "set", "--allow-backwards", "remote-unsync"],
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
);
cli: do not list non-tracking remote branches by default I personally don't mind if "jj branch list" showed all non-tracking branches, but I agree it would be a mess if ~500 remote branches were listed. So let's hide them by default as non-tracking branches aren't so interesting. Closes #1136
2023-10-18 06:56:02 +00:00
// Synchronized tracking remotes and non-tracking remotes aren't listed by
// default
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "list"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
local-only: wqnwkozp 4e887f78 (empty) local-only
remote-delete (deleted)
@origin: mnmymoky 203e60eb (empty) remote-delete
remote-sync: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
remote-unsync: wqnwkozp 4e887f78 (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "list", "--all-remotes"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
local-only: wqnwkozp 4e887f78 (empty) local-only
remote-delete (deleted)
@origin: mnmymoky 203e60eb (empty) remote-delete
remote-sync: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
@origin: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
remote-unsync: wqnwkozp 4e887f78 (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
remote-untrack@origin: vmortlor 71a16b05 (empty) remote-untrack
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli: port "branch list" to template Perhaps, this can be used to generate parsable branches list. The hint for deleted branches isn't migrated to the template. I'm thinking of moving it out of the loop and printed once at the end. If we want to generate a hint in template, we'll probably need local_ref.tracking_remote_refs(), etc. that return a list of RefNames.
2024-04-30 06:00:07 +00:00
let template = r#"
concat(
"[" ++ name ++ if(remote, "@" ++ remote) ++ "]\n",
separate(" ", "present:", present) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "conflict:", conflict) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "normal_target:", normal_target.description().first_line()) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "removed_targets:", removed_targets.map(|c| c.description().first_line())) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "added_targets:", added_targets.map(|c| c.description().first_line())) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "tracked:", tracked) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "tracking_present:", tracking_present) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "tracking_ahead_count:", tracking_ahead_count.lower()) ++ "\n",
separate(" ", "tracking_behind_count:", tracking_behind_count.lower()) ++ "\n",
)
"#;
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "list", "--all-remotes", "-T", template],
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: port "branch list" to template Perhaps, this can be used to generate parsable branches list. The hint for deleted branches isn't migrated to the template. I'm thinking of moving it out of the loop and printed once at the end. If we want to generate a hint in template, we'll probably need local_ref.tracking_remote_refs(), etc. that return a list of RefNames.
2024-04-30 06:00:07 +00:00
[local-only]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: local-only
removed_targets:
added_targets: local-only
tracked: false
tracking_present: false
tracking_ahead_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
tracking_behind_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
[remote-delete]
present: false
conflict: false
normal_target: <Error: No Commit available>
removed_targets:
added_targets:
tracked: false
tracking_present: false
tracking_ahead_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
tracking_behind_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
[remote-delete@origin]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: remote-delete
removed_targets:
added_targets: remote-delete
tracked: true
tracking_present: false
tracking_ahead_count: 2
tracking_behind_count: 0
[remote-sync]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: remote-sync
removed_targets:
added_targets: remote-sync
tracked: false
tracking_present: false
tracking_ahead_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
tracking_behind_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
[remote-sync@origin]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: remote-sync
removed_targets:
added_targets: remote-sync
tracked: true
tracking_present: true
tracking_ahead_count: 0
tracking_behind_count: 0
[remote-unsync]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: local-only
removed_targets:
added_targets: local-only
tracked: false
tracking_present: false
tracking_ahead_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
tracking_behind_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
[remote-unsync@origin]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: remote-unsync
removed_targets:
added_targets: remote-unsync
tracked: true
tracking_present: true
tracking_ahead_count: 1
tracking_behind_count: 1
[remote-untrack@origin]
present: true
conflict: false
normal_target: remote-untrack
removed_targets:
added_targets: remote-untrack
tracked: false
tracking_present: false
tracking_ahead_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
tracking_behind_count: <Error: Not a tracked remote ref>
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli: add "branch list --all" option to include all remote branches This will be the option to include non-tracking remote branches. We could add more fine-grained filtering flags, but I think --all is good enough and easier to remember. This patch also updates many of the test outputs to include synchronized remote branches. I think verbose outputs will help catch future bugs.
2023-10-18 06:12:17 +00:00
}
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_list_filtered() {
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: set git_settings.auto_local_branch where it matters
2023-12-16 10:00:14 +00:00
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
cli: make set of immutable commits configurable This adds a new `revset-aliases.immutable_heads()s` config for defining the set of immutable commits. The set is defined as the configured revset, as well as its ancestors, and the root commit commit (even if the configured set is empty). This patch also adds enforcement of the config where we already had checks preventing rewrite of the root commit. The working-copy commit is implicitly assumed to be writable in most cases. Specifically, we won't prevent amending the working copy even if the user includes it in the config but we do prevent `jj edit @` in that case. That seems good enough to me. Maybe we should emit a warning when the working copy is in the set of immutable commits. Maybe we should add support for something more like [Mercurial's phases](https://wiki.mercurial-scm.org/Phases), which is propagated on push and pull. There's already some affordance for that in the view object's `public_heads` field. However, this is simpler, especially since we can't propagate the phase to Git remotes, and seems like a good start. Also, it lets you say that commits authored by other users are immutable, for example. For now, the functionality is in the CLI library. I'm not sure if we want to move it into the library crate. I'm leaning towards letting library users do whatever they want without being restricted by immutable commits. I do think we should move the functionality into a future `ui-lib` or `ui-util` crate. That crate would have most of the functionality in the current `cli_util` module (but in a non-CLI-specific form).
2023-09-02 02:12:01 +00:00
test_env.add_config(r#"revset-aliases."immutable_heads()" = "none()""#);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
// Initialize remote refs
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "remote"]);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
let remote_path = test_env.env_root().join("remote");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
for bookmark in ["remote-keep", "remote-delete", "remote-rewrite"] {
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", bookmark]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["bookmark", "create", bookmark]);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
}
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["git", "export"]);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
// Initialize local refs
let mut remote_git_path = remote_path;
remote_git_path.extend([".jj", "repo", "store", "git"]);
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
test_env.env_root(),
&["git", "clone", remote_git_path.to_str().unwrap(), "local"],
);
let local_path = test_env.env_root().join("local");
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "local-keep"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "create", "local-keep"]);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
// Mutate refs in local repository
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "remote-delete"]);
tests: replace jj_cmd_success() involving mutation to allow stderr output
2023-10-10 11:59:18 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["describe", "-mrewritten", "remote-rewrite"]);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let template = r#"separate(" ", commit_id.short(), bookmarks, if(hidden, "(hidden)"))"#;
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(
test_env.jj_cmd_success(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["log", "-r::(bookmarks() | remote_bookmarks())", "-T", template],
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
),
@r###"
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
○ e31634b64294 remote-rewrite*
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
│ @ c7b4c09cd77c local-keep
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
│ ○ 3e9a5af6ef15 remote-rewrite@origin (hidden)
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
│ ○ dad5f298ca57 remote-delete@origin
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
│ ○ 911e912015fb remote-keep
index: import commits in chronological order This basically means that heads in a filtered graph appear in reverse chronological order. Before, "jj log -r 'tags()'" in linux-stable repo would look randomly sorted once you ran "jj debug reindex" in it. With this change, indexing is more like breadth-first search, and BFS is known to be bad at rendering nice graph (because branches run in parallel.) However, we have a post process to group topological branches, so we don't have this problem. For serialization formats like Mercurial's revlog iirc, BFS leads to bad compression ratio, but our index isn't that kind of data. Reindexing gets slightly slower, but I think this is negligible. (in Git repository) % hyperfine --warmup 3 --runs 10 "jj debug reindex --ignore-working-copy" (original) Time (mean ± σ): 1.521 s ± 0.027 s [User: 1.307 s, System: 0.211 s] Range (min … max): 1.486 s … 1.573 s 10 runs (new) Time (mean ± σ): 1.568 s ± 0.027 s [User: 1.368 s, System: 0.197 s] Range (min … max): 1.531 s … 1.625 s 10 runs Another idea is to sort heads chronologically and run DFS-based topological sorting. It's ad-hoc, but worked surprisingly well for my local repositories. For repositories with lots of long-running branches, this commit will provide more predictable result than DFS-based one.
2023-08-12 10:32:05 +00:00
├─╯
Enable the new graph nodes by default. It's been tested in various places now, so this is probably mature enough to be the default.
2024-07-15 22:20:10 +00:00
◆ 000000000000
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// All bookmarks are listed by default.
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "list"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
local-keep: kpqxywon c7b4c09c (empty) local-keep
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
remote-delete (deleted)
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
@origin: yxusvupt dad5f298 (empty) remote-delete
remote-keep: nlwprzpn 911e9120 (empty) remote-keep
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
cli templates: include hidden (AKA abandoned) status in short commit template This is mainly relevant for `jj abandon` and `jj branch list`. #2411
2023-10-24 01:43:12 +00:00
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
let query =
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
|args: &[&str]| test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &[&["bookmark", "list"], args].concat());
let query_error = |args: &[&str]| {
test_env.jj_cmd_failure(&local_path, &[&["bookmark", "list"], args].concat())
};
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// "all()" doesn't include deleted bookmarks since they have no local targets.
// So "all()" is identical to "bookmarks()".
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["-rall()"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
local-keep: kpqxywon c7b4c09c (empty) local-keep
remote-keep: nlwprzpn 911e9120 (empty) remote-keep
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
cli templates: include hidden (AKA abandoned) status in short commit template This is mainly relevant for `jj abandon` and `jj branch list`. #2411
2023-10-24 01:43:12 +00:00
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Exclude remote-only bookmarks. "remote-rewrite@origin" is included since
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
// local "remote-rewrite" target matches.
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["-rbookmarks()"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
local-keep: kpqxywon c7b4c09c (empty) local-keep
remote-keep: nlwprzpn 911e9120 (empty) remote-keep
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
cli templates: include hidden (AKA abandoned) status in short commit template This is mainly relevant for `jj abandon` and `jj branch list`. #2411
2023-10-24 01:43:12 +00:00
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Select bookmarks by name.
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["remote-rewrite"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["-rbookmarks(remote-rewrite)"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli templates: include change id and more in short commit description Include change id as well as (empty) and (conflict) markers in short commit description. Unlike `jj log`, * (conflict) is put in parentheses to distinguish it from the commit description when the output is not colored. * the change id is placed right before the commit id to put it into a predicteble place, even if the short commit description takes up more than one line. The commit id can be important for commit descriptions in commands like `abandon`.
2023-07-11 01:46:38 +00:00
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
cli templates: include hidden (AKA abandoned) status in short commit template This is mainly relevant for `jj abandon` and `jj branch list`. #2411
2023-10-24 01:43:12 +00:00
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Select bookmarks by name, combined with --all-remotes
cli: allow branch list to combine -r and -a
2024-03-28 18:13:33 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["git", "export"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["--all-remotes", "remote-rewrite"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: unblock "branch list --all-remotes" with name patterns Like -r/--revisions, it should be okay to filter synced/non-tracking remote branches by name. conflicts_with_all = "tracked" is redundant, so removed as well. The tracked field declares that it conflicts with --all-remotes.
2024-04-02 06:53:20 +00:00
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
@git: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["--all-remotes", "-rbookmarks(remote-rewrite)"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: allow branch list to combine -r and -a
2024-03-28 18:13:33 +00:00
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
@git: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: allow branch list to combine -r and -a
2024-03-28 18:13:33 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Can select deleted bookmark by name pattern, but not by revset.
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["remote-delete"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
remote-delete (deleted)
@origin: yxusvupt dad5f298 (empty) remote-delete
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["-rbookmarks(remote-delete)"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
revset: don't resolve deleted branch symbol to empty set A deleted branch disappears immediately if there's no remote counterpart, so I don't think a local name should be resolvable like zombie.
2023-07-02 00:59:34 +00:00
"###);
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(query_error(&["-rremote-delete"]), @r###"
revset: don't resolve deleted branch symbol to empty set A deleted branch disappears immediately if there's no remote counterpart, so I don't think a local name should be resolvable like zombie.
2023-07-02 00:59:34 +00:00
Error: Revision "remote-delete" doesn't exist
revset: do not suggest deleted local branches, suggest @remote branches It seemed too verbose to always include @remote branches, so synced remotes are omitted by default. If the given symbol contained '@', all remote symbols are populated so that the distance of remote fragment is taken into account.
2023-07-02 04:57:44 +00:00
Hint: Did you mean "remote-delete@origin", "remote-keep", "remote-rewrite", "remote-rewrite@origin"?
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
// Name patterns are OR-ed.
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["glob:*-keep", "remote-delete"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
local-keep: kpqxywon c7b4c09c (empty) local-keep
remote-delete (deleted)
@origin: yxusvupt dad5f298 (empty) remote-delete
remote-keep: nlwprzpn 911e9120 (empty) remote-keep
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
// Unmatched name pattern shouldn't be an error. A warning can be added later.
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["local-keep", "glob:push-*"]);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
local-keep: kpqxywon c7b4c09c (empty) local-keep
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
// Name pattern and revset are OR-ed.
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = query(&["local-keep", "-rbookmarks(remote-rewrite)"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli: add "branch list [NAMES]..." filter Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think "jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight PR branches.
2023-11-01 03:01:17 +00:00
local-keep: kpqxywon c7b4c09c (empty) local-keep
remote-rewrite: xyxluytn e31634b6 (empty) rewritten
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): xyxluytn hidden 3e9a5af6 (empty) remote-rewrite
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli: add revset filter to "branch list" Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to exclude remote-only branches #1136. The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
2023-06-28 02:53:01 +00:00
}
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_list_much_remote_divergence() {
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
// Initialize remote refs
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "remote"]);
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
let remote_path = test_env.env_root().join("remote");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "remote-unsync"]);
for _ in 0..15 {
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new", "-m", "remote-unsync"]);
}
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["bookmark", "create", "remote-unsync"]);
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["git", "export"]);
// Initialize local refs
let mut remote_git_path = remote_path;
remote_git_path.extend([".jj", "repo", "store", "git"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
test_env.env_root(),
&["git", "clone", remote_git_path.to_str().unwrap(), "local"],
);
let local_path = test_env.env_root().join("local");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "local-only"]);
for _ in 0..15 {
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["new", "-m", "local-only"]);
}
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "create", "local-only"]);
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
// Mutate refs in local repository
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "set", "--allow-backwards", "remote-unsync"],
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "list"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
local-only: zkyosouw 4ab3f751 (empty) local-only
remote-unsync: zkyosouw 4ab3f751 (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by at least 10 commits, behind by at least 10 commits): lxyktnks 19582022 (empty) remote-unsync
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
revset: add count_estimate() to Revset trait The count() function in this trait is used by "jj branch" to determine (and then report) how many commits a certain branch is ahead/behind another branch. This is currently implemented by walking all commits in the revset, counting how many were encountered. But this could be improved: if the number is large, it is probably sufficient to report "at least N" (instead of walking all the way), and this does not scale well to jj backends that may not have all commits present locally (which may prefer to return an estimate, rather than access the network). Therefore, add a function that is explicitly documented to be O(1) and that can return a range of values if the backend so chooses. Also remove count(), as it is not immediately obvious that it is an expensive call, and callers that are willing to pay the cost can obtain the exact same functionality through iter().count() anyway. (In this commit, all users of count() are migrated to iter().count() to preserve all existing functionality; they will be migrated to count_estimate() in a subsequent commit.) "branch" needed to be updated due to this change. Although jj is currently only available in English, I have attempted to keep user-visible text from being assembled piece by piece, so that if we later decide to translate jj into other languages, things will be easier for translators.
2024-01-16 22:12:02 +00:00
}
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_list_tracked() {
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
test_env.add_config("git.auto-local-branch = true");
// Initialize remote refs
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "remote"]);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
let remote_path = test_env.env_root().join("remote");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
for bookmark in [
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
"remote-sync",
"remote-unsync",
"remote-untrack",
"remote-delete",
] {
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", bookmark]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["bookmark", "create", bookmark]);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
}
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["new"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&remote_path, &["git", "export"]);
// Initialize local refs
let mut remote_git_path = test_env.env_root().join("remote");
remote_git_path.extend([".jj", "repo", "store", "git"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
test_env.env_root(),
&[
"git",
"clone",
"--colocate",
remote_git_path.to_str().unwrap(),
"local",
],
);
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "upstream"]);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
// Initialize a second remote
let mut upstream_git_path = test_env.env_root().join("upstream");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&upstream_git_path,
&["new", "root()", "-m", "upstream-sync"],
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&upstream_git_path, &["bookmark", "create", "upstream-sync"]);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&upstream_git_path, &["new"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&upstream_git_path, &["git", "export"]);
upstream_git_path.extend([".jj", "repo", "store", "git"]);
let local_path = test_env.env_root().join("local");
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
&[
"git",
"remote",
"add",
"upstream",
upstream_git_path.to_str().unwrap(),
],
);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["git", "fetch", "--all-remotes"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "local-only"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "create", "local-only"]);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
// Mutate refs in local repository
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "remote-delete"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "delete", "remote-untrack"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
&["bookmark", "untrack", "remote-untrack@origin"],
);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
&[
"git",
"push",
"--remote",
"upstream",
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
"--bookmark",
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
"remote-unsync",
],
);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "set", "--allow-backwards", "remote-unsync"],
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "list", "--all-remotes"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
local-only: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
@git: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
remote-delete (deleted)
@origin: mnmymoky 203e60eb (empty) remote-delete
remote-sync: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
@git: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
@origin: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
remote-unsync: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
@git: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
@upstream (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
remote-untrack@origin: vmortlor 71a16b05 (empty) remote-untrack
upstream-sync: lolpmnqw 32fa6da0 (empty) upstream-sync
@git: lolpmnqw 32fa6da0 (empty) upstream-sync
@upstream: lolpmnqw 32fa6da0 (empty) upstream-sync
"###);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&local_path, &["bookmark", "list", "--tracked"]);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
remote-delete (deleted)
@origin: mnmymoky 203e60eb (empty) remote-delete
remote-sync: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
@origin: zwtyzrop c761c7ea (empty) remote-sync
remote-unsync: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
@upstream (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
upstream-sync: lolpmnqw 32fa6da0 (empty) upstream-sync
@upstream: lolpmnqw 32fa6da0 (empty) upstream-sync
"###
);
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @r###"
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
Hint: Bookmarkes marked as deleted will be *deleted permanently* on the remote on the next `jj git push`. Use `jj bookmark forget` to prevent this.
cli: print deleted branch hints at end of "branch list" output These hints shouldn't be interleaved in the template output. The new output might look a little bit worse, but I don't think it's unacceptably bad.
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
"###);
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "list", "--tracked", "remote-unsync"],
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
remote-unsync: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
@upstream (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "list", "--tracked", "remote-untrack"],
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @"");
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "untrack", "remote-unsync@upstream"],
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
let (stdout, stderr) = test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&local_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "list", "--tracked", "remote-unsync"],
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(stdout, @r###"
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
remote-unsync: nmzmmopx e1da745b (empty) local-only
@origin (ahead by 1 commits, behind by 1 commits): qpsqxpyq 38ef8af7 (empty) remote-unsync
"###);
tests: snapshot both stdout and stderr in "branch list" tests
2024-05-09 10:45:11 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(stderr, @"");
cli `branch list`: list tracked branches Add an option to list tracked branches only This option keeps most of the current `--all` printing logic, but: - Omits local Git-tracking branches by default (can be extended to support filtering by remote). - Skip over the branch altogether if it doesn't contain tracked remotes - Don't print the untracked_remote_refs at the end Usage: `jj branch list -t` `jj branch list --tracked` `jj branch list --tracked <branch name>`
2024-02-21 18:27:50 +00:00
}
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
#[test]
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn test_bookmark_list_conflicted() {
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
let test_env = TestEnvironment::default();
tests: avoid deprecated `jj init --git/--git-repo` I left the instances in `test_init_command.rs` alone since they're about testing `jj init`.
2024-05-17 19:49:25 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(test_env.env_root(), &["git", "init", "repo"]);
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
let repo_path = test_env.env_root().join("repo");
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
// Track existing bookmark. Local bookmark should result in conflict.
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "a"]);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["new", "root()", "-m", "b"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "create", "bar"]);
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
&["bookmark", "create", "foo", "-r", "description(a)"],
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(
&repo_path,
&[
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
"bookmark",
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
"create",
"foo",
"-r",
"description(b)",
"--at-op=@-",
],
);
test_env.jj_cmd_ok(&repo_path, &["status"]);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(get_bookmark_output(&test_env, &repo_path), @r###"
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
bar: kkmpptxz 06a973bc (empty) b
foo (conflicted):
+ rlvkpnrz d8d5f980 (empty) a
+ kkmpptxz 06a973bc (empty) b
"###);
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
insta::assert_snapshot!(test_env.jj_cmd_success(&repo_path, &["bookmark", "list", "--conflicted"]), @r###"
cli: add option to list only conflicted branches As requested in #1471, I added a new flag for `jj branch list` to only show branches that are conflicted. Adds a unit test to check for listing only conflicted branches and regenerates the cli output to incorporate the new flag. Closes #1471 reformat
2024-03-22 12:43:43 +00:00
foo (conflicted):
+ rlvkpnrz d8d5f980 (empty) a
+ kkmpptxz 06a973bc (empty) b
"###);
}
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
fn get_log_output(test_env: &TestEnvironment, cwd: &Path) -> String {
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
let template = r#"bookmarks ++ " " ++ commit_id.short()"#;
tests: extract log template function/variable for code readability Also rewrites some lengthy templates. That's why the test output slightly changed.
2023-02-28 10:43:14 +00:00
test_env.jj_cmd_success(cwd, &["log", "-T", template])
cli: `jj branch` can accept any number of branches
2022-05-02 19:58:32 +00:00
}
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
everything: Rename `branches` to `bookmarks` Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks. We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord, where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]` config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations. This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_ with a easier model. This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
2024-08-21 19:59:15 +00:00
fn get_bookmark_output(test_env: &TestEnvironment, repo_path: &Path) -> String {
// --quiet to suppress deleted bookmarks hint
test_env.jj_cmd_success(repo_path, &["bookmark", "list", "--all-remotes", "--quiet"])
test_branch_command: test fetching a forgotten branch
2023-06-13 21:49:51 +00:00
}
Copy permalink