Skip to content
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

Use NotifyEndApplication to re-enable VT mode instead of doing it in InputLoop.Run #16612

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 14, 2022

Conversation

daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

PR Summary

This is a refactor of the changes in #14413 -- use NotifyEndApplication to re-enable VT mode instead of doing it in InputLoop.Run, so that we run this code only after invoking native commands.

PR Context

I was reviewing the use of NotifyBeginApplication and NotifyEndApplication for some related issues in VS Code extension, and .NET Interactive Notebook, and found that the code to re-enable VT mode in ConsoleHost is not done in NotifyEndApplication, but in InputLoop.Run, so the code runs for every command execution instead of only after executable invocation. This PR attempts to refactor the fix in #14413 to only do it after execution of a native command.

PR Checklist

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 44 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +22 -22
Percentile : 17.6%

Total files changed: 3

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +22 -22

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

if (_runStandAlone)
{
this.Command.Context.EngineHostInterface.NotifyBeginApplication();
_hasNotifiedBeginApplication = true;
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If a native process tweaks the window title, it will do so no matter it's running StandAlone or in a pipeline. So, we should actually always call NotifyBeginApplication and NotifyEndApplication before and after running a native command. Therefore, I moved this code out of the if (_runStandAlone) block.

if (outputMode.HasFlag(ConsoleControl.ConsoleModes.VirtualTerminal))
{
return true;
}
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the outputMode already has VirtualTerminal enabled, no need to set the mode again.

if (ui.SupportsVirtualTerminal)
{
// Re-enable VT mode if it was previously enabled, as a native command may have turned it off.
ui.TryTurnOnVirtualTerminal();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: Interesting, is such console operations expensive?
In line 1105 we have already requested a handle and set mode, now TryTurnOnVirtualTerminal does the operations again. It seems we could do perf optimization.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very likely not expensive, especially if this is done only after native command execution. The handle is already cached, GetActiveScreenBufferHandle() returns a cached output handle.

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Dec 14, 2021
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

@SteveL-MSFT and @anmenaga Can you please review when you have time? Thanks!

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Dec 25, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Dec 25, 2021

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days.
Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

@SteveL-MSFT and @anmenaga gentle ping :) Please review when you have time, thanks!

@ghost ghost removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Jan 3, 2022
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

@SteveL-MSFT and @anmenaga Gentle ping again :) Please take a look when you have time, thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@anmenaga anmenaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.
Interesting scenario.

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @anmenaga for taking a look!
@iSazonov I think this PR is ready to merge, thanks!

@iSazonov iSazonov merged commit 186d6be into PowerShell:master Jan 14, 2022
@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

Final notices:

  1. Maybe interesting for you End of line cursor position differences when app is run in Windows Terminal microsoft/terminal#8312 (comment) (with related references)
  2. Here all is about output to a console but should we think about input too?

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw deleted the refactor branch January 14, 2022 17:12
TrapGodBrim pushed a commit to TrapGodBrim/PowerShell that referenced this pull request Jan 19, 2022
Use NotifyEndApplication to re-enable VT mode instead of doing it in InputLoop.Run, so that we run this code only after invoking native commands
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 24, 2022

🎉v7.3.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants