See comments inline for details. Cc #2600.
In particular, I wanted to make sure these behaviors are not affected by #2646.
They don't seem to be.
The tests ended up weirder than expected because of
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/2600#issuecomment-1835418824. Even
though, right now, the behavior of tests is unaffected by that issue, the
*expected* behavior is different.
Branches move around a little confusigly with `abandon`. We do want to keep
them, to test their behavior, but we can show the change id to make things
clearer.
Note that one of the new tests panics; this is a newly discovered bug.
In Git, a commit's direct parent is allowed to also be an indirect ancestor
at the same time. `jj` currently tries to prevent this situation, but does
allow it. The correctness of `rebase -r A -d descendant_of_A` currently depends
on this jj-specific behavior; we should change that.
Cc #2600
Allowing `jj init --git` in an existing Git repo creates a second Git
store in `.jj/repo/store/git`, totally disconnected from the existing
Git store. This will only produce extremely confusing bugs for users,
since any operations they make in Git will *not* be reflected in the
jj repo.
This follows up on 3967f63 (see that commit's description for more
motivation) and e79c8b6.
In a discussion linked below, it was decided that forbidding `-r --skip-empty`
entirely is preferable to the mixed behavior introduced in 3967f63.
3967f637dc (commitcomment-133539911)
If the existing git repo contains local and remote branches of the same name,
one of the remote branches is probably a tracking remote branch. Let's show
a hint how to set up tracking branches. The tracking state could be derived
from .git/config, but doing that automatically might cause another issue like
#1862, which could have been mitigated by git.auto-local-branch = false.
Repeating these is a no-op. This allows:
```shell
jj new -r a -r b # Equivalent to jj new a b
jj new --before a --before b # Equivalent to jj new a b --before
```
I keep typing the latter and getting an annoying error.
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.
Renamed `description_template_for_commit` to
`description_template_for_describe` since it's only used in
`cmd_describe`.
Renamed `description_template_for_cmd_split` to
`description_template_for_commit` and modified to accomodate empty
`intro` argument.
Fixes#2439.
As discussed in Discord, it's less useful if remote_branches() included
Git-tracking branches. Users wouldn't consider the backing Git repo as
a remote.
We could allow explicit 'remote_branches(remote=exact:"git")' query by changing
the default remote pattern to something like 'remote=~exact:"git"'. I don't
know which will be better overall, but we don't have support for negative
patterns anyway.
Summary: A natural extension of the existing support, as suggested by Scott
Olson. Closes#2496.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I91c9c8c377ad67ccde7945ed41af6c79
My gut feeling is that gitoxide aims to be more transparent than libgit2. We'll
need to know more about the underlying Git data model.
Random comments on gix API:
* gix::Repository provides API similar to git2::Repository, but has less
"convenient" functions. For example, we need to use .find_object() +
.try_to/into_<kind>() instead of .find_<kind>().
* gix::Object, Blob, etc. own raw data as bytes. gix::object and gix::objs
types provide high-level views on such data.
* Tree building is pretty low-level compared to git2.
* gix leverages bstr (i.e. bytes) extensively.
It's probably not difficult to migrate git::import/export_refs(). It might
help eliminate the startup overhead of libssl initialization. The gix-based
GitBackend appears to be a bit faster, but that wouldn't practically matter.
#2316
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.
Makes sure that, at the point the commit summary for the new commit is written,
the original commit that is being rewritten is already abandoned. Otherwise,
once we show divergent change ids (in a subsequent commit) in the short commit
template, the commits would be shown as divergent.
This also has an effect on whether branches are displayed next to the commit;
the changes in test_resotre_command happen because, now, the branch is properly
propagated to the restored commit before its summary is displayed.
test_templater_alias(), test_templater_alias_override(), and
test_templater_bad_alias_decl() aren't moved since they also test config loading
and error formatting. The first test in test_templater_parse_error() is left for
the same reason. test_templater_upper_lower() depends on the commit templater.
I don't think many of the tests in test_templater.rs should use "jj log" command
as they check very specific template syntax and function behaviors. Let's move
them to in-module tests. We could add a separate test file, but we would have
to export a couple of templater macros.
test_templater_timestamp_method() is migrated as example.
Since "jj git fetch --branch" supports glob patterns, users would expect that
"jj git push --branch glob:.." also works.
The error handling bits are copied from "branch" sub commands. We might want to
extract it to a common helper function, but I haven't figured out a reasonable
boundary point yet.
AFAICT, all callers of `Merge::to_file_merge()` are already well
prepared for working with executable files. It's called from these
places:
* `local_working_copy.rs`: Materialized conflicts are correctly
updated using `Merge::with_new_file_ids()`.
* `merge_tools/`: Same as above.
* `cmd_cat()`: We already ignore the executable bit when we print
non-conflicted files, so it makes sense to also ignore it for
conflicted files.
* `git_diff_part()`: We print all conflicts with mode "100644" (the
mode for regular files). Maybe it's best to use "100755" for
conflicts that are unambiguously executable, or maybe it's better to
use a fake mode like "000000" for all conflicts. Either way, the
current behavior seems fine.
* `diff_content()`: We use the diff content in various diff
formats. We could add more detail about the executable bits in some
of them, but I think the current output is fine. For example,
instead of our current "Created conflict in my-file", we could say
"Created conflict in executable file my-file" or "Created conflict
in ambiguously executable file my-file". That's getting verbose,
though.
So, I think all we need to do is to make `Merge::to_file_merge()` not
require its inputs to be non-executable.
Closes#1279.
I'm about to make conflicts also get materialized in executable
files. We'll lose some of the test coverage in `test_chmod_command.rs`
then, because the those tests rely on the materialized content to
describe the executable bits. So this commit adds a debug command for
printing tree values and uses that in the tests.
