I think we should test actually performing the push when possible. I
think I initially used `--dry-run` because I thought it wasn't
possible to do local pushes with libgit2.
Fix a bug where `jj git push` would print "No current branch." when
there is a current branch but it is unchanged. We were conflating the
two because we print the message when no updates were performed, instead
of only when no branches were found.
Otherwise the description set by -m would differ from the one set by editor.
This fixes test_describe() which says "make no changes", but previously "\n"
would be added by the second "jj describe".
As you can see, almost all hashes change in CLI tests. This means in-flight
PRs will need to be rebased to update insta snapshots.
Description text could be normalized by CommitBuilder, but the caller would
have to normalize it beforehand to compare with the current description, so
we would need an explicit function anyway. Another idea is to add a newtype
that represents a normalized description, and make CommitBuilder require it.
Commit::description() will return &Description in place of &str to ensure
that commit.description() == raw_str wouldn't compile.
Git CLI provides --cleanup=<mode> option to switch normalization rules, but
I don't think we'll need such feature.
Let's acknowledge everyone's contributions by replacing "Google LLC"
in the copyright header by "The Jujutsu Authors". If I understand
correctly, it won't have any legal effect, but maybe it still helps
reduce concerns from contributors (though I haven't heard any
concerns).
Google employees can read about Google's policy at
go/releasing/contributions#copyright.
Since we now allow pushing open commits, we can implement support for
pushing the "current" branch by defining a "current" branch as any
branch pointing to `@`. That definition of a current/active seems to
have been the consensus in discussion #411.
Closes#246.
It's convenient to push all changed branches every time with `jj git
push`, but sometimes I want to know which branches were actually
pushed. This make the command print what it's going to do.
I'll add a `--dry-run` mode and tests next.
I think I had not added tests for successful push before because I
thought there was some issue with testing it with libgit2. There *is*
an issue, which is that libgit2 requires the remote to be bare when
it's on local disk, but we can very easily make the git repo bare in
this test.
I also updated the error handling in the `git` module to not let
follow-on errors hide the real error and to not fail if two branches
moved to the same commit.
I was a bit surprised to see the message when I used `jj git push
--change @-` on a commit that already had a branch because I had
pushed it earlier.
The fix means that we instead print the message even if we later
abandon the transaction (so the branch-creation is not persisted)
because the commit is open, for example. That's already what happens
if the commit is missing a description, and since we're planning to
remove the open/closed concept, I don't think this patch makes it much
worse. We probably should improve it later by printing the message
only once the push has succeeded.
This patch prevents perhaps pushing commits with an empty description
or the placeholder "(no user/email configured)" values for
author/committer.
Closes#322.
This adds `jj git push --change <revision>` which creates a branch
with a name based on the revision's change ID, and then pushes that
like with `--branch`. That can be useful so you don't have to manually
add the branch (and come up with a name for it). The created branch
behaves like any other branch, so it's possible to make it point to a
commit with a different change ID.
We very often expect success, and we sometimes want to get the stdout,
too. Let's add a convenience function for that. It saves a lot of
lines of code.
Open commits are work-in-progress and `jj git push --branch <name>`
therefore errors out if the branch points to an open commit. However,
we don't do the same check if you run `jj git push` to push all
branches. This patch introduces such a check. Rather than error out,
we skip such branches instead.
I didn't make it check for open commits in ancestors. It's quite
unusual (at least in my workflow) to have a closed commit on top of an
open one. We can revisit if users get surprised by it.
It rarely makes sense to push commits with conflicts to a remote Git
repo (which is the only kind of remote we support so far), so let's
just error out instead of pushing a commit that others pulling from
the remote probably can't make sense of.
I've only added a simple test for the error case for now. `libgit2`
doesn't support pushing to a local repo, so it's harder to test the
success case. I suppose we'll have to have the regular `git` binary
running local servers in test eventually.
Closes#60.
