Other: show_branch_panel and show_remote_panel #713

randy3k · 2017-07-20T03:39:35Z

close #546

It is a major refactor of the branch and remote panels. The two related functions are show_remote_panel and show_branch_panel.

The git flow related code is kept untouched as they are written in a different style with the other code.
I tried very hard to make sure it doesn't break any functionality, though not 100% sure.

The maintainers of this repo require that all pull request submitters agree and adhere to the following:

I have read and agree to the contribution guidelines.
(required)
All related documentation has been updated to reflect the changes made. (required)
My commit messages are cleaned up and ready to merge. (required)

The maintainers of this repository require you to select the semantic version type that
the changes in this pull request represent. Please select one of the following:

major
minor
patch
documentation only

randy3k · 2017-07-20T03:43:40Z

So maintainerd will also be triggered if the PR is merging to a branch other than master?

Actually, I was quite excited when maintainerd was first deployed and wanted to see how it can make the process smoother. The agreement and disclaimers are nice, but the auto tagging feature is sometimes quite annoying, especially when we try to merge something small. Should there be an option for not tagging?

I reckon we should move the development to a different branch and leave master branch release-only.

divmain · 2017-07-20T06:13:11Z

maintainerd is triggered, but there won't be an auto-release unless the PR is being merged into master. So no issues there. If you want, we can aggregate changes into a develop branch, and then do a single PR to merge all of those changes into master at a later time.

What are your primary concerns regarding auto tagging @randy3k? In my mind, it seems like if we're confident enough to merge something into master, in most cases we should be confident enough to release. Even refactors are code changes thatcan introduce bugs, so a patch-version change is "correct". It also makes sense from a practical standpoint, since a release that includes 1) a refactor, and 2) an intentional behavior-change, can obscure any regressions or new bugs introduced with refactor itself.

So that's my thinking, but I'm curious if there are holes in that thinking. I also want it to be useful - so if it is actively interfering, we should definitely address that somehow.

randy3k · 2017-07-20T06:55:40Z

maintainerd is triggered, but there won't be an auto-release unless the PR is being merged into master. So no issues there. If you want, we can aggregate changes into a develop branch, and then do a single PR to merge all of those changes into master at a later time.

Then it should not ask for a semver type. Not choosing one would result in a failure check.

What are your primary concerns regarding auto tagging @randy3k?

Auto tagging is not a issue per se. I am worried about the auto-update of package control. Sublime Text users will obtain a very new piece of GitSavvy once a tag is released. It may not be idea in our case. It is not guaranteed that a hot fix in one location won't break some code in other locations. In the end, we haven't fully implemented the tests. This concern will be reduced only by enough tests.

It also makes sense from a practical standpoint, since a release that includes 1) a refactor, and 2) an intentional behavior-change, can obscure any regressions or new bugs introduced with refactor itself.

In terms of the git flow terminology, it means the master branch is now dedicated to hot fixes and releases. The idea of using a "develop" branch and pushing fixes/releases to master for auto-tagging is not much different to using a "master" branch for development and do manually tagging. The "merge to master" part still has to be done manually.

With that said, I have no objection of either models. For now, I would just create PR to develop unless it is a simple and clear fix.

Edit: Another side effect of auto-tagging is the silent update via Package Control. Without proper Package Control messages, users may be surprised GitSavvy has been updated.

stoivo · 2017-08-12T18:50:10Z

This is a lot of changes, is it possible to split it up into smaller commits? That would make it somewhat easier to review.

randy3k · 2017-08-12T20:25:24Z

Sure.

randy3k · 2017-08-12T21:24:59Z

@stoivo
Please review.

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:10:31Z

core/ui_mixins/quick_panel.py

+        else:
+            selected_branch = self.selected_branch
+
+        if pre_selected_index is None:


This will always be None since it is set to None on line 260.

You are right, it is redundant.

stoivo

These are the comments I have. Came to d601ead and will do the rest tomorrow.
God night

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:17:31Z

core/ui_mixins/quick_panel.py

+    def get_pre_selected_branch_index(self, remote):
+        pre_selected_index = None
+        if self.selected_branch is None:
+            selected_branch = self.get_current_branch_name()


Can't we set it to self.selected_branch to avoid self.selected_branch and selected_branch?

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:29:12Z

core/commands/log_graph.py

-            flags=sublime.MONOSPACE_FONT,
-            selected_index=pre_selected_index
-        )
+    def run_async(self, **kwargs):


Why do we need to add **kwargs?

it is not needed, will be removed.

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:41:38Z

core/commands/checkout.py

-        self.window.show_input_panel(NEW_BRANCH_PROMPT, name, self.on_done, None, None)
+    def run_async(self, base_branch=None):
+        self.base_branch = base_branch
+        self.window.show_input_panel(NEW_BRANCH_PROMPT, "", self.on_done, None, None)


The second argument should not an empty string. When I created this it worked like if you enter an invalid branch name, for example with a space in the middle, it would open the prompt again with the name you enter prefilled.

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:42:57Z

core/commands/checkout.py


    def on_done(self, branch_name):
        pattern = r"^(?!\.|.*\.\..*|.*@.*|\/)[a-zA-Z0-9\-\_\/\.\u263a-\U0001f645]+(?<!\.lock)(?<!\/)(?<!\.)$"
        match = re.match(pattern, branch_name)
        if not match:
-            sublime.error_message("`{}` is a invalid branch name.\nRead more on $(man git-check-ref-format)".format(branch_name))
+            sublime.error_message(NEW_BRANCH_INVALID.format(branch_name))
            sublime.set_timeout_async(self.run_async(branch_name))


Here is the recursion if you enter an invalid branch name.

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:47:56Z

core/commands/checkout.py

+        v.run_command("select_all")
+
+    def on_enter_local_name(self, branch_name):
+        pattern = r"^(?!\.|.*\.\..*|.*@.*|\/)[a-zA-Z0-9\-\_\/\.\u263a-\U0001f645]+(?<!\.lock)(?<!\/)(?<!\.)$"


Should be moved into a constant to remove duplication.

stoivo · 2017-08-13T21:48:42Z

core/commands/checkout.py

+                self.on_enter_local_name,
+                None,
+                None)
+        v.run_command("select_all")


This should be done for the the above one too

stoivo

Some comments, now I am at commit 591edb0

stoivo · 2017-08-15T19:09:40Z

core/commands/fetch.py

@@ -19,39 +17,22 @@ def run(self, remote=None):
        if remote:
            return self.do_fetch(remote)

-        self.remotes = list(self.get_remotes().keys())
+        show_remote_panel(self.on_remote_selection, show_all=True)


Maybe rename show_all to show_option_all? this way is more self-explanatory. Not a big deal but show_all is quite ambiguous.

stoivo · 2017-08-15T19:21:44Z

core/commands/commit_compare.py

@@ -146,35 +146,22 @@ def run(self, base_commit=None, target_commit=None, file_path=None):
        self._target_commit = target_commit
        sublime.set_timeout_async(self.run_async)

-    def run_async(self):
-        self.all_branches = [b.name_with_remote for b in self.get_branches()]
+    def run_async(self, **kwargs):


must be copied from other place.

stoivo

After these comments you can squarsh all fixup commit into where they belong.
Then

stoivo · 2017-08-16T20:00:47Z

github/commands/open_on_remote.py

-                pre_selected_index = 0
-
-            self.view.window().show_quick_panel(
-                self.remote_keys,


Remove line 6322960#diff-7307dc85c05c5908333cc4d57b32b2d8R34 unused variable
6322960#diff-7307dc85c05c5908333cc4d57b32b2d8R91

stoivo · 2017-08-16T20:19:37Z

core/commands/checkout.py

+        self.git(
+            "checkout", "-b",
+            branch_name,
+            self.base_branch if self.base_branch else None)


Why do we need to pass a starting point?
I don't think we need to pass a starting point, if so self.base_branch is not necessary.

You mean base_branch? It will be used in dashboard to create new branch for other branches.

Now the command would look like

git checkout -b <branch_nane> <starting point>

Should we pass the starting point?

It is useful to specific the starting point in some cases. The default value of base_branch is None. It would not produce any side effects in the normal use case.

Other: remove the redundant if condition Other: remove the unneccessary use of selected_branch

Other: remove unneeded keyword arguments

Other: use the invalid branch name as default

Other: more self explanatory argument show_option_all

Other: remove the unneccessary keyword argument

Other: remove the unneccessary argument

randy3k · 2017-08-17T01:54:26Z

all rebased. Thanks @stoivo to review it.

stoivo · 2017-08-17T16:33:02Z

core/commands/checkout.py

-    def run_async(self, name=""):
-        self.window.show_input_panel(NEW_BRANCH_PROMPT, name, self.on_done, None, None)
+    def run_async(self, base_branch=None):
+        self.base_branch = base_branch


You are setting it here so it does not work if you change the name.

I am lost. If base_branch is None, it is just like previously. Else if base_branch is not None, it will checkout a new branch from base_branch.

hm, I thought I broke it. But when I test it now I works perfectly

stoivo · 2017-08-18T07:03:25Z

core/commands/checkout.py

-    def run_async(self, name=""):
-        self.window.show_input_panel(NEW_BRANCH_PROMPT, name, self.on_done, None, None)
+    def run_async(self, base_branch=None):
+        self.base_branch = base_branch


hm, I thought I broke it. But when I test it now I works perfectly

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch from 194ef3c to bcb36e9 Compare July 20, 2017 03:42

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch 3 times, most recently from 0dedc05 to 538ac05 Compare July 20, 2017 05:26

randy3k mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2017

Enhancement: Redesign checkout functionality of Branch dashboard #714

Merged

7 tasks

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch 4 times, most recently from e6ada2f to adbdb7b Compare July 25, 2017 15:21

randy3k added the enhancement label Jul 27, 2017

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch 2 times, most recently from cd9c885 to 737b474 Compare August 3, 2017 02:35

randy3k changed the base branch from develope to master August 3, 2017 02:37

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch from 737b474 to 8326f34 Compare August 3, 2017 02:39

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch from 8326f34 to c715033 Compare August 12, 2017 21:24

stoivo reviewed Aug 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

stoivo requested changes Aug 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

randy3k mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2017

Fix: always pull to the active branch #736

Merged

7 tasks

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch from 3f8d692 to 11efbcf Compare August 15, 2017 20:01

stoivo reviewed Aug 15, 2017

View reviewed changes

randy3k mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2017

[WIP] offer "push to remote" while open file on remote #740

Closed

7 tasks

stoivo requested changes Aug 16, 2017

View reviewed changes

randy3k added 2 commits August 16, 2017 21:53

Enhancement: added show_remote_panel and show_branch_panel

c4a64e3

Other: remove the redundant if condition Other: remove the unneccessary use of selected_branch

Enhancement: improve GsLogByAuthorCommand and GsLogByBranchCommand

1b35fc8

randy3k added 12 commits August 16, 2017 21:53

Enhancement: improve GsLogGraphByBranchCommand

2cbb522

Other: remove unneeded keyword arguments

Enhancement: improve Checkout commands

afc8cfb

Other: use the invalid branch name as default

Enhancement: improve GsFetchCommand

fe677c1

Other: more self explanatory argument show_option_all

Enhancement: improve GsCompareCommitCommand

aac243d

Other: remove the unneccessary keyword argument

Enhancement: improve GsMergeCommand

0276051

Enhancement: improve GsPullCommand

c66db87

Other: remove the unneccessary argument

Enhancement: improve GsPushToBranchCommand

fda0f78

Enhancement: improve GsRemoteAddCommand and GsRemoteRemoveCommand

0fd4e62

Enhancement: improve GsResetBranch

dcceec5

Enhancement: improve GsBranchesConfigureTracking and GsBranchesPushAll

c87654b

Enhancement: improve GsConfigureGithubRemoteCommand

6586f9a

Enhancement: improve GsOpenGithubRepoCommand

572b4da

randy3k force-pushed the randy3k/panel branch from 0c8cfb1 to 572b4da Compare August 17, 2017 01:54

stoivo reviewed Aug 17, 2017

View reviewed changes

stoivo approved these changes Aug 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

randy3k merged commit 7c9dbd7 into master Aug 18, 2017

randy3k deleted the randy3k/panel branch August 18, 2017 11:23

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Other: show_branch_panel and show_remote_panel #713

Other: show_branch_panel and show_remote_panel #713

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

divmain commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

stoivo commented Aug 12, 2017

randy3k commented Aug 12, 2017

randy3k commented Aug 12, 2017

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

randy3k Aug 13, 2017

stoivo left a comment

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

randy3k Aug 13, 2017

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

randy3k Aug 13, 2017

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

stoivo Aug 13, 2017

stoivo left a comment •

edited

Loading

stoivo Aug 15, 2017

stoivo Aug 15, 2017

randy3k Aug 15, 2017

stoivo left a comment

stoivo Aug 16, 2017

randy3k Aug 17, 2017

stoivo Aug 16, 2017

randy3k Aug 17, 2017

stoivo Aug 17, 2017

randy3k Aug 17, 2017

randy3k commented Aug 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

stoivo Aug 17, 2017

randy3k Aug 17, 2017

stoivo Aug 18, 2017

stoivo Aug 18, 2017

Other: show_branch_panel and show_remote_panel #713

Other: show_branch_panel and show_remote_panel #713

Conversation

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 • edited Loading

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 • edited Loading

divmain commented Jul 20, 2017 • edited Loading

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 • edited Loading

stoivo commented Aug 12, 2017

randy3k commented Aug 12, 2017

randy3k commented Aug 12, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stoivo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stoivo left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stoivo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

randy3k commented Aug 17, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

divmain commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

randy3k commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

stoivo left a comment •

edited

Loading

randy3k commented Aug 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading