When loading the files of a commit we passed --no-renames, so a rename
showed up as a separate delete and add rather than a single R entry.
That made it impossible to work with a rename that also modifies the
file: the modifications were spread across a full deletion and a full
addition instead of appearing as the handful of lines that actually
changed. The staging view already shows renames and lets you stage
their hunks, so there was no good reason for the patch builder to
differ; the flag was only there because the commit-file parser couldn't
cope with the rename record format.
Switch the commit-file loader and the per-file diff to --find-renames,
teach the parser about the rename record (a status followed by two
paths), and carry the previous path through the patch builder so the
diff for a rename is loaded with both paths, which is what makes git
emit the rename in the first place.
A whole-file selection keeps the rename in the header, so the rename
moves or is discarded together with the file's contents. A partial
selection instead strips the rename metadata and points the header at
the new path, so applying the patch only changes the contents and
leaves the rename in place; the blob index line is kept so that a 3-way
apply can still fall back to a blob merge.
Discarding a renamed file from a commit now discards both the new and
the old path, so the new file is removed and the old one is restored.
Changing the rename similarity threshold refreshes the commit files
panel too, not just the files panel, so that a rename can turn into a
delete and add or back. It is disabled while building a patch, however,
because the patch builder caches each file's diff by path and would
desync if a rename changed into a delete and add underneath it.
Finally, copying a file's diff from the commit files panel now passes
both paths for a rename, so the copied diff shows the rename instead of
a new-file add.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
So far, confirmations and prompts were handled by the same view, context, and
controller, with a bunch of conditional code based on whether the view is
editable. This was more or less ok so far, since it does save a little bit of
code duplication; however, now we need separate views, because we don't have
dynamic keybindings, but we want to map "confirm" to different keys in
confirmations (the "universal.confirm" user config) and prompts (hard-coded to
enter, because it doesn't make sense to customize it there).
It also allows us to get rid of the conditional code, which is a nice benefit;
and the code duplication is actually not *that* bad.
We are also removing the single-character padding on the left/right edges of the bottom
line because it's unnecessary
Unfortunately we need to create views for each spacer: it's not enough to just
layout the existing views with padding inbetween because gocui only renders
views meaning if there is no view in a given position, that position will just
render whatever was there previously (at least that's what I recall from talking
this through with Stefan: I could be way off).
Co-authored-by: Stefan Haller <stefan@haller-berlin.de>
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.