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>
This fixes the problem; a consequence of this change is that given the following
scenario:
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
1
-2
+2b
3
staging only the line `+2b` will put it *before* the unchanged `2` line, rather
than after it as you might expect (the changed unit tests demonstrate this).
Since this should be a pretty uncommon scenario, I guess it is an ok compromise.
As you can see in the changed tests, while the behavior of what gets staged is
fixed now, it doesn't always correctly select the next line to stage. We'll
address this in the next commit.
I took the set of enabled checks from revive's recommended configuration [1],
and removed some that I didn't like. There might be other useful checks in
revive that we might want to enable, but this is a nice improvement already.
The bulk of the changes here are removing unnecessary else statements after
returns, but there are a few others too.
[1] https://github.com/mgechev/revive?tab=readme-ov-file#recommended-configuration
Several custom patch commands on parts of an added file would fail with the
confusing error message "error: new file XXX depends on old contents". These
were dropping the custom patch from the original commit, moving the patch to a
new commit, moving it to a later commit, or moving it to the index.
We fix this by converting the patch header from an added file to a diff against
an empty file. We do this not just for the purpose of applying the patch, but
also for rendering it and copying it to the clip board. I'm not sure it matters
much in these cases, but it does feel more correct for a filtered patch to be
presented this way.
Stefan HallerandClaude Opus 4.8
Jesse Duffield