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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
When a rebase (or multi-commit cherry-pick or revert) stops with a
conflict, it is often useful to look at the diff of the "<-- CONFLICT"
commit to double-check that the conflict resolution matches the diff of
the original commit. To make that easier, select that commit
automatically.
I'm not a skilled UI designer, so I suspect there may be even better
options, but it's definitely already better than the raw ASCII "---" we
had before.
Put the line only at the beginning because it looks bad if the line
after the label is misaligned when labels don't have the same width
(e.g. "Remote" vs. "Local" in the divergence view).
This guards against regressions from the changes that follow. We're
about to add a mechanism that keeps the selection anchored by commit
hash, but we need to make sure that it doesn't take effect here; after a
merge we want to select the newly added merge commit. In the current
state of the code this happens to work because we keep the selection
index the same, which happened to be 0 here; later we will change this
to explicitly select the head commit after the merge.
AutoForwardBranches relies on the worktree model to skip any branch
that's currently checked out in another worktree (so we don't update
its ref behind the worktree's back). The post-fetch refresh wasn't
including the worktrees scope, so any external change to the worktree
list between lazygit's startup and the fetch — a `git worktree add`,
a `git checkout` in a linked worktree, a branch rename — left the
in-memory model stale and the skip check returned false negatives.
Add WORKTREES to the post-fetch refresh scope when auto-forwarding is
enabled. We gate on the config so users with auto-forward disabled
don't pay for an extra `git worktree list` plus per-worktree rev-parse
on every fetch tick.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When the linked worktree's branch is changed externally — by another
shell, by another tool, or by git running outside lazygit — lazygit's
worktrees model goes stale. The next post-fetch auto-forward then
doesn't realise the branch is now checked out elsewhere, and advances
its ref behind the worktree's back. The worktree's HEAD then resolves
to a commit its index/working tree haven't been updated to, and the
user sees that diff as the inverse of what was fetched — files
appearing as pending changes that they didn't make.
The test sets up a linked worktree initially on a side branch, then
externally checks out master in it before pressing fetch. Two
EXPECTED/ACTUAL pairs capture the symptoms: the branches view shows
master as `✓` rather than `↓1`, and switching to the linked worktree
shows master's would-be incoming file as a pending deletion against
HEAD.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When a branch is checked out by another worktree, show the worktree
name in the label, e.g. "(worktree cosmos2)" instead of just
"(worktree)", so you can immediately see which worktree holds it.
The test shows that we are currently auto-forwarding branches even if they are
checked out by another worktree; this is quite bad, because when you switch to
that other worktree you'll see that the files that are touched by the fetched
commits are all modified (which we don't test here).
Similar to what was done in 457cdce61d, and for the same reason.
However, instead of waiting and fixing them one by one as we see them fail, I
decided to go about it more systematically. To do that, I added calls to
`time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)` in all the Shell.Commit* helper functions; this
ensures that all the commits we make get different committer time stamps, making
all these tests fail. With this I'm pretty confident that we're good now.
It is useful to see if the conflicted commit was a "pick" or an "edit". What's
more, we're about to add support for showing cherry-picks and reverts, and
seeing that a conflicted commit was a revert is important because its diff is
backwards compared to the diff of the conflicting files in the Files panel.
When you are in the middle of a rebase, and you cherry-pick a commit which
conflicts, it helps to be clear on whether you are prompted to continue the
cherry-pick or the rebase.
Previously the entire status was colored in a single color, so the API made
sense. This is going to change in the next commit, so now we must include the
color in the string returned from BranchStatus(), which means that callers who
need to do hit detection or measure the length need to decolorize it.
While we're at it, switch the order of ↑3↓7 to ↓7↑3. For some reason that I
can't really explain I find it more logical this way. The software out there is
pretty undecided about it, it seems: VS Code puts ↓7 first, and so does the
shell prompt that comes with git; git status and git branch -v put "ahead" first
though. Shrug.
Use Equals instead of Contains for asserting the status view content. This
solves the problem that we might assert Contains("↓2 repo"), but what it really
shows is "↑1↓2 repo", and the test still succeeds. At best this is confusing.
Also, this way we don't have to use the awkward DoesNotContain to check that it
really doesn't show a checkmark.
To do this, we need to fix two whitespace problems:
- there was always a space at the end for no reason. Simply remove it. It was
added in efb51eee96, but from looking at that diff it seems it was added
accidentally.
- there was a space at the beginning if the branch status was empty. This is
actually a cosmetic problem, for branches without a status the text was
indented by once space. Change this so that the space is added conditionally.
It's a bit awkward that we have to use Decolorise here, but this will go away
again later in this branch.
To determine whether we need to ask for force pushing, we need to query the push
branch rather than the upstream branch, in case they are not the same.
Our code doesn't realize that we need to prompt the user to force push, when the
branch is up-to-date with its upstream but not with the branch that we're
pushing to.
This wasn't necessary before, because the only available branch sorting option
was by recency, so the sort order couldn't change except by checking out
branches. Now, you can sort by committer date, so the branch order can change by
fetching; in this case it's important to keep the same branch selected. One
important use case is to rebase the checked-out branch onto master; you select
master, press "f" to fetch it (this can now change its position in the list),
and then press "r" to rebase. To make this work smoothly it's important to keep
master selected after pressing "f".
It seems that older git versions would drop empty commits when rebasing. Since
this aspect is not relevant to what we're testing here, fix this by simply
avoiding empty commits in these tests.
When stopping in a rebase because of a conflict, it is nice to see the commit
that git is trying to apply. Create a fake todo entry labelled "conflict" for
this, and show the "<-- YOU ARE HERE ---" string for that one (in red) instead
of for the real current head.
We have not been good at consistent casing so far. Now we use 'Sentence case' everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Also Removing 'Lc' prefix from i18n field names: the 'Lc' stood for lowercase but now that everything
is in 'Sentence case' there's no need for the distinction.
I've got a couple lower case things I've kept: namely, things that show up in parentheses.
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
Stefan HallerandClaude Opus 5.5
Ruud Kamphuis
Nathan Baulch
Jesse Duffield