Some tests assert that a specific commit subject does or doesn't occur
in the main view; interactive_rebase/outside_rebase_range_select.go is
an example for this, it asserts `t.Views().Main().Content(
DoesNotContain("commit 06"))`. The problem with this kind of assertion
and our test commit naming scheme is that the diff view begins with a
"commit <hash>" line, and when that hash happens to start with "06" the
assertion matched it and failed spuriously. This was usually masked by
our MaxAttempts=2 that we currently use for integration tests (it's
quite unlikely that the commit gets a hash beginning with "06" twice in
a row). However, we want to get to a state where we can set MaxAttempts
to 1, so make this more robust by changing our naming scheme.
By constructing an arg vector manually, we no longer need to quote arguments
Mandate that args must be passed when building a command
Now you need to provide an args array when building a command.
There are a handful of places where we need to deal with a string,
such as with user-defined custom commands, and for those we now require
that at the callsite they use str.ToArgv to do that. I don't want
to provide a method out of the box for it because I want to discourage its
use.
For some reason we were invoking a command through a shell when amending a
commit, and I don't believe we needed to do that as there was nothing user-
supplied about the command. So I've switched to using a regular command out-
side the shell there
When we use the one panel for the entire commit message, its tricky to have a keybinding both for adding a newline and submitting.
By having two panels: one for the summary line and one for the description, we allow for 'enter' to submit the message when done from the summary panel,
and 'enter' to add a newline when done from the description panel. Alt-enter, for those who can use that key combo, also works for submitting the message
from the description panel. For those who can't use that key combo, and don't want to remap the keybinding, they can hit tab to go back to the summary panel
and then 'enter' to submit the message.
We have some awkwardness in that both contexts (i.e. panels) need to appear and disappear in tandem and we don't have a great way of handling that concept,
so we just push both contexts one after the other, and likewise remove both contexts when we escape.
Stefan Haller
Jesse Duffield
SeanandJesse Duffield