Prevents a warning from being printed when renaming branches in a
colocated repo, since git tracking branches were being considered as
remote tracking branches.
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.
For the same reason as cdc0cc3601. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
Not all "branch list --all-remotes" callers are replaced because I'm going to
make get_branch_output() suppress hints by default, and there should be tests
for the hints.
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.
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.
Templater doesn't have the one yet, but I think it belongs to the same
category.
For clap::Error, we could use clap's own mechanism to render suggestions as
"tip: ...", but I feel "Hint: ..." looks better because our error/hint message
is capitalized.
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.
The lowercase "warning: " is unified to "Warning: " as it is the jj's
convention afaik.
The _default() suffix could be dropped from these methods, but it's probably
better to break the existing codebase for the moment. Otherwise, the caller
might do writeln!(ui.warning(), "Warning: ..").
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
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>`
this greatly speeds up the time to run all tests, at the cost of slightly larger recompile times for individual tests.
this unfortunately adds the requirement that all tests are listed in `runner.rs` for the crate.
to avoid forgetting, i've added a new test that ensures the directory is in sync with the file.
## benchmarks
before this change, recompiling all tests took 32-50 seconds and running a single test took 3.5 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 3.543 s ± 0.168 s [User: 2.597 s, System: 1.262 s]
Range (min … max): 3.400 s … 3.847 s 10 runs
```
after this change, recompiling all tests take 4 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs ; cargo t --test runner --no-run'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.055 s ± 0.123 s [User: 3.591 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.804 s … 4.159 s 10 runs
```
and running a single test takes about the same:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test runner -- test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.129 s ± 0.120 s [User: 3.636 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.933 s … 4.346 s 10 runs
```
about 1.4 seconds of that is the time for the runner, of which .4 is the time for the linker. so
there may be room for further improving the times.
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.
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.
This tries to clarify the fact that the branches must be remote and the syntax
for specifying them as globs.
Cc @yuja, https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/2625#discussion_r1423379351
Here is the result (excerpt):
```
$ jj branch track --help
Start tracking given remote branches
A tracking remote branch will be imported as a local branch of the same name. Changes to it
will propagate to the existing local branch on future pulls.
Usage: jj branch track [OPTIONS] <BRANCH@REMOTE>...
Arguments:
<BRANCH@REMOTE>...
Remote branches to track
By default, the specified name matches exactly. Use `glob:` prefix to select
branches by wildcard pattern. For details, see
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/revsets.md#string-patterns.
Examples: branch@remote, glob:main@*, glob:jjfan-*@upstream
```
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.
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.
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.
