OverwriteLines is asked for a line and writes the one below it when the
write before it ended in a newline. The view holds such a newline back
until more content arrives, so that it doesn't end in an empty line,
and OverwriteLines moved the write cursor without letting go of it, so
the write that followed advanced to the next line first.
Move the cursor through SetWritePos, which drops the pending newline
along with it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A view holds back the newline that ends a write until more content
arrives, so that it doesn't end in an empty line. OverwriteLines moves
the write cursor to the line it is given without letting go of that
pending newline, so the write that follows advances first and lands on
the line below. Nothing in lazygit overwrites lines right after such a
write today.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Everything about a diff's content — which file and line a row belongs
to, whether it's a change — is a property of the unwrapped buffer line,
while the cursor, clicks and the range selection all speak in view
lines, which count wrapped segments. Reading the content under the
cursor therefore needs the mapping in both directions, and doing it
outside gocui isn't possible: the wrapping is internal, and the caller
couldn't take the view's lock across the lookup and the read.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Parse is lenient: it takes any text and reads a diff out of it, which is
what we want when we hand it a diff, but it has no way to say "this
isn't one". We're about to parse the *rendered* contents of a diff view,
which a diff renderer is free to restructure — putting the line numbers
in a gutter, say, shifts the +/- marker off the start of each body line,
so every line reads as context and the parse silently lies about which
lines are changes.
Comparing each hunk's body against the lengths its header declares
catches exactly that, without teaching us anything about any particular
renderer's layout: a faithful unified diff agrees with its headers, a
restructured one doesn't.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Identifying a change line of a diff by its file line number needs both
sides: two consecutive deletions sit at the same new-file position, so
only their old-file line numbers tell them apart. LineNumberOfLine only
answers for the new file, which leaves deletions ambiguous.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Wrapping the content at another width moves every line of it to a
different view line. The positions into the view are all view lines: the
scroll offset, the cursor, a range's anchor. Each of them is then left
pointing at a line it was never on. Committing the last of the staged
changes widens the main view by half a screen, and that moves a selected
hunk somewhere else entirely.
Carry the positions through the lines of content they were on. A position
always meant a line of content rather than a view line. The line the
cursor is on keeps the row it was drawn on, so it stays in front of the
user rather than the view scrolling under it; a view with no cursor on
screen keeps its own place instead. A range's ends go on the outermost
segments of their lines, since a range covers lines of content and not
the segments those lines are drawn as.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The scroll offset, the cursor and a range's anchor are all view lines, which
count the segments each line of the content is wrapped into. A change of
width wraps the content differently, so every one of them ends up on a
different line than the one it was put on.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
A test asks which lines of a view are selected; a wrapping view's cursor and
range anchor answer in view lines, which count the segments each line is
drawn as. Going through the segment-to-line mapping keeps the answer in the
terms the question was asked in, and a line the selection covers several
segments of is reported once.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The lines a selection covers are asked for by view line, which counts the
segments a wrapping view breaks a line into, and then used to index the
content, whose lines are unwrapped. The two agree only for a view whose
content doesn't wrap.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tags can only be pushed one at a time. Let the push command of the tags
panel work on a range selection of tags too. It asks for one remote and
pushes all selected tags to it with a single git command.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This lets pushing a range selection of tags push them all with a single
git command.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tags can only be deleted one at a time. If many of them have piled up,
for example backup tags made before rewriting a branch, deleting them
takes a lot of keypresses.
Let the delete menu work on a range selection of tags. It deletes the
selected tags with one git command for the local tags and one for the
remote tags, and asks for a single remote for all of them. After
deleting local tags, collapse the range selection to its first line;
otherwise it would select the tags that moved up into the place of the
deleted ones.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Deleting a remote tag and deleting a local and remote tag each have
their own copy of the code that asks for the remote and for a
confirmation. Deleting a range selection of tags needs to change it in
the same way for both.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This lets deleting a range selection of tags delete them all with a
single git command, the same way it works for branches.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Deleting and pushing a range selection of tags will need to show their
operation on all the selected tags. Move the code from BranchesHelper
into a generic function that takes the items and the key of the context
that shows them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When somebody else rebases a stack of branches and force-pushes it,
pulling the topmost branch leaves the branches below it diverged. Since
#6067 they can be updated manually with `f`, but pushing the stack
offers to push the branches
below along with the current one, so pulling should be symmetric, and
this PR adds that.
When somebody else rebases a stack and force-pushes it, pulling the
topmost branch leaves the branches below it diverged. They can be
updated with `f`, but pushing the stack offers to push the branches
below along with the current one, and pulling should be symmetric.
When pulling, find the branches stacked below the current one that can
be updated without losing anything. These are those that are behind
their upstream branches, and those that diverged from them only because
they were rewritten. If there are any, show a menu that lists them and
offers to update them in addition to pulling the current branch, or to
pull only the current branch. The current branch is pulled as before.
The decision is based on the last fetch, not on a new one, so that the
menu appears right away. If the remote has changed since then, a branch
might not be offered although it could be updated; it then shows as
diverged after the pull, and pulling again offers it. The update itself
fetches the upstream branches and checks them again, so it never loses
commits.
Branches that are checked out in another worktree are not offered,
since updating them would change the files there.
The branches below are updated before the current branch is pulled. If
one of them pointed into the commits that a rebasing pull rebases, the
pull would move it when rebase.updateRefs is set, and updating it
afterwards would fail. If updating them fails, the current branch isn't
pulled.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Pushing a stack and fast-forwarding a range of branches each show their
operation on all the branches involved, with their own copy of the same
code. Pulling a stack will need it too, so move it to BranchesHelper.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
FastForwardBranches looks up the worktrees of the branches in the model
on the UI thread, and then does the rest on a worker, with the branches
shown as being fast-forwarded. The next commit needs to update branches
as part of pulling the current one, in the pull's own task.
Move everything except the inline status into PrepareFastForward, which
returns the part to run on a worker.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Lazygit can auto-forward main branches after fetching, which is useful
to always keep your `main` branch up to date. However, checking out
`main` in another worktree stopped this from happening, on the
assumption that we don't want to touch branches that are checked out
somewhere. For a main branch this is not an issue (as long as the
worktree doesn't have modified files); forwarding it in that case too is
useful for the setup where you always keep main checked out in the main
worktree, and work on feature branches in linked worktrees.
Pressing `f` on such a branch already supported fast-forwarding it even
when checked out in a worktree, so now auto-forwarding after fetching
does the same.
If a main branch is checked out in another worktree, auto-forwarding
after a fetch skips it. People who keep the main branch checked out in
their main worktree, and work on feature branches in linked worktrees,
therefore never get it forwarded.
Fast-forward such a branch in the worktree it is checked out in, as `f`
does. Skip the worktree if it has changes to tracked files, since
nobody asked for its files to change. Also skip it if it is mid-rebase
or mid-bisect, because its HEAD is then detached from the branch. A
branch in the current worktree is never forwarded. This covers the case
of the current worktree being mid-rebase on a main branch, whose ref
would otherwise be forwarded under the rebase.
Auto-forwarding now writes the same reflog message as `f`
("lazygit: update to upstream branch").
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
If `f` is used on several branches that are checked out in other
worktrees, the first worktree in which the fast-forward fails stops the
whole operation. For example, an untracked file that the fast-forward
would overwrite leaves the branches after it untouched, even though
nothing is wrong with them.
Try all the branches, and report the errors of the failed ones
together. The checks that refuse to fast-forward any of the branches
still run before anything is moved.
The next commit uses forwardBranches for auto-forwarding branches in
other worktrees, where stopping at the first failure is worse. A
worktree that fails every time would prevent the ones after it from
ever being forwarded. For this, forwardBranches also takes the git
commands to use, since a background worker doesn't block switching
repos.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
AutoForwardBranches runs in the Then callback of the refresh after a
fetch. This is on the UI thread, so the git command for updating the
branches blocks the UI while it runs. This is fine for a single
update-ref, but the next commit adds a git status and a git merge for
each branch that is checked out in another worktree.
Keep reading the branches from the model on the UI thread, and move the
git work to a worker.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Lazygit shows local branches that have diverged from their upstream with
a yellow `↓3↑5`. There can be two reasons for diverging, and right now
it's impossible to tell which of these is the case: (1) you rebased the
branch locally (or rewrote its history), in which case you want to
force-push it, or (2) someone else rebased the branch, in which case you
want to pull it. (We'll ignore the case where both of these happened, in
which case you need to manually reconcile the work that each side did,
e.g. through cherry-picking; you want to avoid this situation.)
With this PR, lazygit distinguishes the two scenarios, and for (2) it
shows the `↓3↑5` in a dim yellow. What's more, you don't even have to
check out the branch to pull it; you can press `f` to reset it to its
upstream without checking it out, like you would fast-forward a branch
that is behind its upstream. In fact the command is still called
"Fast-forward", which is technically not quite correct, but it feels the
same to me. Fast-forwarding a diverged branch in this way is very useful
if an entire stack of branches was rebased remotely; you can simply
range-select all those branches and hit `f` to bring them up to date
with their upstreams.
The worktree loader associates a worktree that is mid-rebase or
mid-bisect with the branch involved, even though its HEAD is detached.
Fast-forwarding such a branch therefore ran the fast-forward in that
worktree. This moved the detached HEAD and put the upstream commits
into the rebase in progress, while the branch stayed where it was.
Remember in the worktree model when its branch comes from a rebase or
bisect, and refuse to fast-forward the branch in that case. Updating
only the ref is no option for a rebase; the rebase writes the branch
when it finishes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
If a branch is being rebased in a worktree, pressing `f` on it moves
the detached HEAD of that worktree instead of the branch. The upstream
commits end up in the rebase in progress, and the branch itself stays
where it was. The same happens for a branch being bisected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Branches that lazygit forwards to their upstream move by a direct ref
write, so no git command turns up in their reflog to explain it. Until
now the entry had no message either, leaving `git reflog <branch>` with
nothing but a blank line about it. Name lazygit and what it did, so that
a branch which moved on its own can be traced.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
After somebody else rebased and force-pushed a stack of branches, every
branch of the stack has to be brought back to its upstream, and pressing
`f` on them one by one is as tedious as the checking out and pulling it
replaces.
Let `f` work on a range selection. The upstream branches are fetched with
one `git fetch` per remote, and the branches that aren't checked out
anywhere move in a single `git update-ref` call. All the selected
branches are looked at before any of them is moved, so a branch that has
to be refused leaves the others alone rather than updating the stack
halfway.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When somebody else rebases a branch and force-pushes it, the local
branch is left diverged from it, so `f` refuses to touch it. To get back
in sync, the branch has to be checked out and pulled, and for a stack of
branches that means doing it once per branch.
Such a branch has none of its own work in it, though: the commits it is
ahead by are the old versions of the ones that are now on the remote
branch. So when the branch has diverged and none of the commits it is
ahead by is ours, reset it to its upstream instead of refusing. This is
the same state that checking the branch out and pulling it would produce,
as rebase drops commits that the upstream already has.
A branch that isn't checked out anywhere is reset with the same
`git update-ref` that a fast-forward uses. One that is checked out
somewhere is reset with `git reset --keep`, and only when that worktree
has no changes to tracked files, so that the files under the user's feet
change no more than they have to. `--keep` also refuses to overwrite an
untracked file that the reset would bring in, which `--hard` would do
silently.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Fast-forwarding a branch that isn't checked out ran a single
`git fetch <remote> refs/heads/<branch>:<branch>`, so git's own refusal
to move a local branch backwards served as the safety check. A later
commit widens the set of branches the command accepts, and for that
lazygit has to make that decision itself.
Fetch the remote branch on its own, updating only its remote-tracking
branch. Then ask git whether the branch is an ancestor of it, and only
then move the branch: with `git update-ref` when it isn't checked out
anywhere, guarded by the hash we knew it to have, and with
`git merge --ff-only` in its worktree when it is checked out there.
Keeping `git pull --ff-only` for the latter case would fetch a second
time.
Fast-forwarding a branch that isn't checked out in a worktree had no
integration test at all, so add one. The second new test covers a repo
that keeps no reflogs, because a later commit starts reading those and
this case has to keep working without them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Most of the logic of this controller belongs in a helper, and the next
commit reshapes it, so move it over unchanged first to keep that diff
about the change itself.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The function asks git whether HEAD is an ancestor of a ref, and its name
says what the one caller wants to know. A later commit asks the same
question about a branch that isn't checked out, so let the caller name
both refs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When somebody else rebases a branch and force-pushes it, our branch
shows up as diverged, say ↓5↑3, and that looks exactly like a branch
that carries three commits of our own. The two want different treatment.
The first one only has to be moved to its upstream, while the second one
needs a decision about what to do with those commits. The panel doesn't
tell them apart, so users have to look at each branch in turn to find
out which one they are dealing with.
Determine for every diverged branch whether it has commits of its own,
and dim its divergence when it doesn't. This runs on a worker, as it
takes a few git commands per diverged branch, and a branch keeps the
answer from the previous load while a new one is in flight, so that the
display doesn't flicker. A later commit teaches the fast-forward command
to act on such a branch.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The flag says whether this load is the one that kicks off the values
determined in the background afterwards. A later commit adds a second of
those next to the behind-counts, so name the flag after what it controls
rather than after its only user so far.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
A branch that has diverged from its upstream doesn't necessarily hold any
work of its own. If somebody else rewrote the remote branch and
force-pushed it, our branch is still at the commits it had before, and
every one of them was on the remote branch at some point. A later commit
offers to reset such a branch to its upstream, and for that it has to
tell this case apart from a branch that holds commits created here.
The reflog of the remote-tracking branch records the values it had before
it was rewritten, so a commit that was ever on the remote branch is
contained in its current value or in one of those. HasLocalOnlyCommits
asks git for a commit of the branch that none of them contains.
Two details of the reflog are worth knowing. The value the ref had before
its oldest entry is that entry's old value, and <ref>@{<number of
entries>} is the only way to name it. It doesn't exist when the oldest
entry is the one that created the ref, and asking for it then is an
error, not an empty result. Reflogs can also be missing altogether,
because core.logAllRefUpdates defaults to false in a bare repository.
Neither case must stop us from recognizing a branch that is strictly
behind its upstream, so the current value of the remote-tracking branch
is always used; missing previous values only make the answer more
conservative.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
After rebasing a stack of branches, every branch of the stack has to be
force-pushed, and so far the only way to do that in lazygit was to check
out each branch in turn and push it. For a stack of a dozen branches
that is a lot of work for a routine task.
When the current branch is pushed and there are branches below it in the
stack that have commits to push, show a menu that offers to push them
along with it. The menu lists the branches and how far each of them has
diverged from its remote branch, so that the user can see what is about
to happen. It doesn't show where each branch goes (i.e. what its
upstream branch's name is or on which remote it is stored); the branches
panel doesn't show that for a normal push either. If any of the branches
has diverged from its remote branch, a single confirmation covers
force-pushing all of them (listing exactly the ones that need
force-pushing).
This only covers branches that already have an upstream configured,
because a branch that was never pushed yet
can't be told apart from one that is meant to stay local. This means
that the very first time you want to push a newly created stack, you
still need to do it manually the old way. We can see if we want to
improve this somehow in the future, but repeatedly pushing a rebased
stack is the more frequent operation, and that's what we improve here.
Pushing the current branch on its own still runs a bare `git push`, so
users who rely on `push.default` or `remote.<name>.push` for it see no
change. The push is non-atomic, as git defaults to; if one branch's
lease fails, the others still go through and the error names the one to
look at.
Some repositories are configured to reject pushes of more than x
branches at once; for those, the command fails with an error. We could
be smarter about this, detect the error, and fall back to pushing each
branch one by one, but I first want to see how many reports we get about
this before investing in the extra logic.
WrapViewLinesToWidth counted the characters of ANSI escape sequences as
if they were visible, so colored text wrapped earlier than the view
does, and the number of lines it reported was too high. In a narrow
terminal the divergence in the menu that offers to push a stack of
branches, colored yellow, ended up on a line of its own even though it
fitted. The tooltip of a disabled menu item, whose prefix is red, gets
its height from the same function.
Skip escape sequences when measuring the width, and never break a line
inside one. gocui wraps parsed cells and never sees escape sequences, so
this brings the two in line; the test's parity check now compares the
wrapped lines with the escape sequences stripped.
Only CSI sequences are recognized. Those are the color and style codes
that lazygit puts into view content; hyperlinks (OSC 8) only occur in
the main view, and gocui wraps that one itself.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
After rebasing a stack of branches, every branch of the stack has to be
force-pushed, and so far the only way to do that in lazygit was to check
out each branch in turn and push it. For a stack of a dozen branches
that is a lot of work for a routine task.
When the current branch is pushed and there are branches below it in the
stack that have commits to push, show a menu that offers to push them
along with it. The menu lists the branches and how far each of them has
diverged from its remote branch, so that the user can see what is about
to happen. It doesn't show where each branch goes; the branches panel
doesn't show that for a normal push either. Pushing only the current
branch is the second entry. If any of the branches has diverged from its
remote branch, a single confirmation covers force-pushing all of them.
A branch is offered if its tip is a commit of the current branch that
isn't merged yet, it has an upstream that is stored locally, that
upstream is not gone, and it is ahead of its push destination. Branches
without an upstream are left out because a branch that was never pushed
can't be told apart from one that is meant to stay local. A branch that
is only behind is left out because pushing it would move the remote
branch back to an older commit; the lease doesn't catch that when the
remote-tracking branch is up to date.
Each branch is pushed to where `git push` would push it if it were
checked out, using the destination git reports in the %(push) field.
This honors push.default, remote.pushDefault and
branch.<name>.pushRemote without lazygit having to interpret them.
Branches going to the same remote are pushed in one command, with
--force-with-lease when the user confirmed force-pushing; the lease
checks each ref against its remote-tracking branch, so a coworker's
unseen push is still rejected. The current branch joins that command
when its remote-tracking branch is stored locally. Otherwise it needs a
plain push first, for example with --set-upstream, and that option
would apply to every refspec of a combined command; so in that case it
is pushed on its own as before, and the other branches follow in a
second command.
Pushing the current branch on its own still runs a bare `git push`, so
users who rely on push.default or remote.<name>.push for it see no
change. The push is non-atomic, as git defaults to; if one branch's
lease fails, the others still go through and the error names the one to
look at.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Pushing the current branch has three cases: it has an upstream, it has
none but push.default is "current", or the user is prompted for one.
Each case ends in a push, and the first one also checks whether a force
push is needed. Let the three cases call a common callback instead, and
put the check and the push there. This makes it possible to run the same
three cases with a different callback, so that the branches stacked
below the current one can be pushed along with it.
The check returns false for a branch without an upstream, so the other
two cases behave as before.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
lazygit will offer to push these along with the current branch, so that
a rebased stack can be pushed in one go. The commits panel already marks
the tips of stacked branches, and this uses the same criterion. A branch
is below the given one if its tip is one of the loaded commits of that
branch that isn't merged into a main branch. This needs no git command.
In whole-graph mode the commit list also contains commits of other
branches, but those are marked as merged, so they don't count.
Not used yet.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
PushOpts can only describe a push of the current branch. It takes the
branch's name and the upstream to push it to, and builds a single
refspec from them. Pushing several branches in one command needs one
refspec per branch, so let callers pass the refspecs themselves. The
sync controller, the only caller so far, builds the same single refspec
that PushCmdObj built before.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
To push a branch other than the checked-out one, lazygit has to name the
remote and the remote branch in the push command; a bare `git push` only
works for the current branch. The upstream isn't always the right
destination. In a triangular workflow the branch is pushed to a
different remote than it pulls from, and with push.default set to
"current" it goes to a branch of the same name whatever the upstream is
called.
Read the destination from git instead of working it out from the config.
The %(push) field of for-each-ref names the remote-tracking ref that a
push would update, taking push.default, remote.pushDefault and
branch.<name>.pushRemote into account. It is also the ref that the
push:track counts are computed against, so the force-push detection and
the destination agree. The field is available since git 2.5, well before
the oldest version lazygit supports.
Nothing uses the new fields yet.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Make it possible to override `gui.theme` colors for light or dark
backgrounds, by setting them in `gui.darkTheme` or `gui.lightTheme`,
respectively; this is often necessary when there isn't a single color
that looks good in both.
Use this to provide better defaults for the background color of a
selected line, and to add a color for the background of an inactive
selected line (used in unfocused views), which didn't have one by
default.
Also, provide a way to turn off the "bold" highlighting of the selected
line, which was hard-coded and couldn't be changed; there's a new config
setting `gui.theme.selectedLineFgColor` that is `[bold]` by default (so
existing behavior is unchanged), but can be set to `[default]` to remove
the bold. This addresses #2304.
The text of the selected line is always bold. Some users don't like
this (#2304), but there is no way to turn it off. Setting
selectedLineBgColor doesn't help. Its attributes apply to the text too,
so it can add bold, but it can't take it away.
Add gui.theme.selectedLineFgColor for the text of the selected line, in
focused and unfocused views alike. Its attributes are added to those of
the text, and a color replaces the colors of the text. It is [bold] by
default, so nothing changes unless you set it; 'default' leaves the
text as it is.
Putting bold into the default of selectedLineBgColor instead wouldn't
work well. To turn it off, you would have to replace the whole list, and
lose the color that is computed from the terminal's background.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
gocui draws the palette colors 0 to 7 on the selected line in their
bright variants. This was meant for the blue highlight on a dark
background, but in most dark palettes the bright variants are so close
to the normal ones that it's barely visible. Elsewhere it makes the text
harder to read. In many palettes, the bright variants are lighter, and
they don't work on the light highlight of a light background. Solarized
maps most of its bright colors to its grays, so colored text on the
selected line turns gray.
Draw the text of the selected line in the same colors as on the other
lines.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
On a light background, the selected line is black text on the palette's
blue. With most palettes, this is hard to read. Light palettes make all
their colors dark enough to read as text on the light background, so
none of them works well as a background for text.
On a light background, mix 25% of #0064ff into the terminal's background
instead. On white, this gives #bfd8ff. The colored text on the selected
line then stays as readable as it is elsewhere.
On a dark background, keep the palette's blue. Dark palettes make it
dark enough to work as a background, and it keeps working on terminals
with only 8 colors. There, a color mixed from a dark background would
turn into black.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The borders of inactive windows are drawn in the terminal's default text
color, so they are as prominent as the text inside the windows. Draw
them in faint text instead. The terminal shades faint text toward its
background, so this works on dark and light backgrounds alike, and also
on backgrounds that are neither black nor white. The titles of inactive
windows use the same color, so they are dimmed too.
Terminals that don't support faint text draw the borders in the default
color, as before.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Some theme colors can't have one default that suits both dark and light
backgrounds. A gray background for the selected line of an inactive
view has to be lighter than the terminal's background if that is dark,
and darker if it is light.
Give such fields a default for each kind of background. Derive it from
the terminal's background color if the terminal tells us, so that it
keeps the same distance from the background however dark or light that
is, and takes on its tint. Otherwise, assume a black or white
background.
These defaults can't be the defaults of gui.theme. We would then have
to tell whether a value there came from the user or from the built-in
defaults, because only the user's value should win over a background
default. Keep them apart from the user config instead, and leave these
fields empty in the defaults of gui.theme, so that a value there always
comes from the user. Tests ensure that no field has both kinds of
defaults, and that both kinds of background set the same fields.
Start with inactiveViewSelectedLineBgColor: the background mixed with
30% white if it is dark (#4d4d4d on black), or with 15% black if it is
light (#d9d9d9 on white). A gray background shows where the selection
is in a view without the focus more clearly than the bold text we used
so far.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
While bisecting, the hashes of the commits outside the bisect range are
black. On a dark gray background this makes them recede, but on a black
one they are invisible, and on a light one they stand out more than any
other hash.
Draw them in faint text instead. The terminal shades faint text toward
its background, whatever that is.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
