-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Always flush conpty before passing-thru a sequence we didn't understand #13462
Conversation
This'll definitely help a lot, but we need to be cautious about how we describe it in the release notes. If we get something that is attached to a region of the screen (there are few of those that aren't SGRs, admittedly), we will emit it in the right place once but we'll not be able to retransmit it if we damage that region. |
// As of GH#8698, when we return false in ConPTY mode, we'll | ||
// automatically flush the currently buffered frame before passing | ||
// through this sequence. | ||
return false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems to me that these comments are somewhat misleading, since they suggest that these three places are unique in the way they flush the current frame, when in fact it applies to everywhere we're returning false. The only thing special about these cases is that they were historically the only ones that used to work, but I don't think that information is particularly useful going forward is it?
Btw, I think this could also be considered a fix for #12313. With this PR applied, the test script in #12313 (comment) is now correctly passing through the hide/show cursor sequences (i.e. private mode 25), where previously they were dropped. |
The tests look doubled-over! And I agree with James: adding those comments doesn't necessarily add value; at this point returning false here does not cause unique behavior. |
<notes> re:test failures test failures are about EraseInDisplay. in
to pass the Lemme try that. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@check-spelling-bot Report🔴 Please reviewSee the 📂 files view or the 📜action log for details. Unrecognized words (28)
Previously acknowledged words that are now absentaabbcc abbcc ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY ABORTIFHUNG bgra chaof COLORMATRIX CTRLFREQUENCY CTRLVOLUME CUsers DECARM DECBKM DECCARA DECERA DECFRA DECRARA DECSACE DECSERA DECXCPR DSBCAPS DSBLOCK DSBPLAY DSBUFFERDESC DSBVOLUME dsound DSSCL dxguid ect ENTIREBUFFER eplace Geddy GETKEYSTATE GLOBALFOCUS hicon hrottled icket IWIC lpwfx luma MAPVIRTUALKEY NOTIMEOUTIFNOTHUNG nto otepad ploc ploca plocm Qaabbcc Qxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SFolder Tdd umul umulh VKKEYSCAN WAVEFORMATEX wic wincodec wyhash wymix wyr xin xinchaof xinxinchaof xwwyzz xxyyzz Zabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ZYXWVU ZYXWVUTd :arrow_right:To accept ✔️ these unrecognized words as correct and remove the previously acknowledged and now absent words, run the following commands... in a clone of the git@github.com:microsoft/terminal.git repository curl -s -S -L 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/v0.0.21/apply.pl' |
perl - 'https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/actions/runs/3568346608/attempts/1' Errors (1)See the 📂 files view or the 📜action log for details.
See ❌ Event descriptions for more information. ✏️ Contributor please read thisBy default the command suggestion will generate a file named based on your commit. That's generally ok as long as you add the file to your commit. Someone can reorganize it later.
If the listed items are:
See the 🔬 You can test your commits without appending to a PR by creating a new branch with that extra change and pushing it to your fork. The check-spelling action will run in response to your push -- it doesn't require an open pull request. By using such a branch, you can limit the number of typos your peers see you make. 😉 If the flagged items are 🤯 false positivesIf items relate to a ...
|
@zadjii-msft was this superseded by the NuShell FTCS change? Or is it unrelated? |
I believe ultimately it was unrelated. For xlinking: #14677. I'm pretty confident that I did test this scenario with the nushell change (or vice versa), and it didn't work. Notes were in #8698 (comment) |
How does this play with Leonard's corking/uncorking work? Is it still necessary? |
This is still open? It went stale years ago |
I'll fill this out in a bit