starred/terminal
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/terminal.git synced 2026-09-25 00:15:10 +00:00
Code Issues 19.0k Packages Projects Releases 20 Wiki Activity

Consolidate Scrolling actions #11660

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-01-31 02:53:58 +00:00 by claunia · 3 comments
claunia commented 2026-01-31 02:53:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @carlos-zamora on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020).

Description of the new feature/enhancement

After #8459, we'll have the following scroll actions:

  • scrollUp
  • scrollDown
  • scrollUpPage
  • scrollDownPage
  • scrollToTop
  • scrollToBottom

This seems to be a case of us introducing new actions when we should be introducing new arguments instead. I propose the following designs:

Design 1: 3 args

  • action: scroll
  • arguments:
    • direction: up|down
    • mode: system|page|buffer
    • rowsToScroll: <optional int>

Personally dislike that rowsToScroll only works if you're in "system" mode. But it avoids the override in Design 2.

Design 2: Override mode

  • action: scroll
  • arguments:
    • direction: up|down
    • mode: system|page|buffer|<int>

This is basically Design 1, except rowsToScroll is embedded inside mode. If we go with this approach, maybe mode should be renamed to something like "amount"?

Open to discussion. Go!

Originally created by @carlos-zamora on GitHub (Dec 2, 2020). # Description of the new feature/enhancement After #8459, we'll have the following scroll actions: - `scrollUp` - `scrollDown` - `scrollUpPage` - `scrollDownPage` - `scrollToTop` - `scrollToBottom` This seems to be a case of us introducing new _actions_ when we should be introducing new _arguments_ instead. I propose the following designs: ### Design 1: 3 args - action: `scroll` - arguments: - `direction: up|down` - `mode: system|page|buffer` - `rowsToScroll: <optional int>` Personally dislike that `rowsToScroll` _only_ works if you're in "system" mode. But it avoids the override in Design 2. ### Design 2: Override mode - action: `scroll` - arguments: - `direction: up|down` - `mode: system|page|buffer|<int>` This is basically Design 1, except `rowsToScroll` is embedded inside `mode`. If we go with this approach, maybe mode should be renamed to something like "amount"? Open to discussion. _Go!_
claunia added the Issue-FeatureArea-SettingsProduct-Terminal labels 2026-01-31 02:53:58 +00:00
claunia commented 2026-01-31 02:53:59 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

@zadjii-msft 2.0 -- fair?

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): @zadjii-msft 2.0 -- fair?
claunia commented 2026-01-31 02:53:59 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

Well, we've got an open PR here with #8459. Are we expecting to resolve this design before we merge that PR? IMO That PR seems perfectly sensible, and I'd merge it as-is. I do get the push to make it a parametrized action - it's the switchToTab1, switchToTab2 thing all over again.

What if it was

{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" } }, // defaults to the system number of lines
{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 } },
{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "page" } },
{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "buffer" } },

Which is like design 2, but without the "system" enum value. Though, I really hate sticking the 5 in the enum.

{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" }, // defaults to the system number of lines
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 }, // defaults to lines
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page" },
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page", "amount": 5 }, // up 5 pages
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer" },
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer", "amount": 5  }, // sure, 5 buffers up. It's still the top.

Okay I think I like design 1 more

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): Well, we've got an open PR here with #8459. Are we expecting to resolve this design before we merge that PR? IMO That PR seems perfectly sensible, and I'd merge it as-is. I do get the push to make it a parametrized action - it's the `switchToTab1`, `switchToTab2` thing all over again. What if it was ```jsonc { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" } }, // defaults to the system number of lines { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 } }, { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "page" } }, { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "buffer" } }, ``` Which is like design 2, but without the "system" enum value. Though, I really hate sticking the `5` in the enum. ```jsonc { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" }, // defaults to the system number of lines { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 }, // defaults to lines { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page" }, { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page", "amount": 5 }, // up 5 pages { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer" }, { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer", "amount": 5 }, // sure, 5 buffers up. It's still the top. ``` Okay I think I like design 1 more
claunia commented 2026-01-31 02:53:59 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@carlos-zamora commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

Well, we've got an open PR here with #8459. Are we expecting to resolve this design before we merge that PR? IMO That PR seems perfectly sensible, and I'd merge it as-is. I do get the push to make it a parametrized action - it's the switchToTab1, switchToTab2 thing all over again.

I'm ok with merging #8459. Mainly because idk when we/somebody would get around to implementing this.

What if it was

{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" } }, // defaults to the system number of lines
{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 } },
{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "page" } },
{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "buffer" } },

So the default would be?:

{ "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "system" } },

Which is like design 2, but without the "system" enum value. Though, I really hate sticking the 5 in the enum.

{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" }, // defaults to the system number of lines
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 }, // defaults to lines
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page" },
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page", "amount": 5 }, // up 5 pages
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer" },
{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer", "amount": 5  }, // sure, 5 buffers up. It's still the top.

So the default would be?:

{ "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "line", "amount": "system" },

I'm fine with either. I agree that your design 1 seems cleaner though. 😊

@carlos-zamora commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): > Well, we've got an open PR here with #8459. Are we expecting to resolve this design before we merge that PR? IMO That PR seems perfectly sensible, and I'd merge it as-is. I do get the push to make it a parametrized action - it's the `switchToTab1`, `switchToTab2` thing all over again. I'm ok with merging #8459. Mainly because idk when we/somebody would get around to implementing this. > What if it was > > ```js > { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" } }, // defaults to the system number of lines > { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 } }, > { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "page" } }, > { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "buffer" } }, > ``` So the default would be?: ```js { "command": { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": "system" } }, ``` > Which is like design 2, but without the "system" enum value. Though, I really hate sticking the `5` in the enum. > > ```js > { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up" }, // defaults to the system number of lines > { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "amount": 5 }, // defaults to lines > { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page" }, > { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "page", "amount": 5 }, // up 5 pages > { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer" }, > { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "buffer", "amount": 5 }, // sure, 5 buffers up. It's still the top. > ``` So the default would be?: ```js { "action": "scroll", "direction":"up", "mode": "line", "amount": "system" }, ``` I'm fine with either. I agree that your design 1 seems cleaner though. 😊
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
⛺ Reserved
A11yCO
A11yMAS
A11ySev1
A11ySev2
A11ySev3
A11yTTValidated
A11yUsable
A11yVoiceAccess
A11yWCAG
Area-Accessibility
Area-AtlasEngine
Area-AzureShell
Area-Build
Area-Build
Area-Chat
Area-CmdPal
Area-CodeHealth
Area-Commandline
Area-CookedRead
Area-DefApp
Area-Extensibility
Area-Fonts
Area-GroupPolicy
Area-i18n
Area-Input
Area-Interaction
Area-Interop
Area-Localization
Area-Output
Area-Performance
Area-Portable
Area-Quality
Area-Remoting
Area-Rendering
Area-Schema
Area-Server
Area-Settings
Area-SettingsUI
Area-ShellExtension
Area-ShellExtension
Area-ShellExtension
Area-Suggestions
Area-Suggestions
Area-TerminalConnection
Area-TerminalControl
Area-Theming
Area-UserInterface
Area-VT
Area-Windowing
Area-WPFControl
AutoMerge
Blocking-Ingestion
Culprit-Centennial
Culprit-WinUI
Disability-All
Disability-Blind
Disability-LowVision
Disability-Mobility
External-Blocked-WinUI3
Fixed
Gathering-Data
good first issue
HCL-E+D
HCL-WindowsTerminal
Help Wanted
Impact-Compatibility
Impact-Compliance
Impact-Correctness
Impact-Visual
In-PR
InclusionBacklog
InclusionBacklog-Windows TerminalWin32
InclusionCommitted-202206
Issue-Bug
Issue-Docs
Issue-Feature
Issue-Feature
Issue-Question
Issue-Samples
Issue-Scenario
Issue-Task
Needs-Attention
Needs-Author-Feedback
Needs-Bisect
Needs-Discussion
Needs-Repro
Needs-Tag-Fix
Needs-Tag-Fix
Needs-Triage
No-Recent-Activity
Priority-0
Priority-1
Priority-2
Priority-3
Product-Cmd.exe
Product-Colortool
Product-Colortool
Product-Colortool
Product-Conhost
Product-Conpty
Product-Meta
Product-Powershell
Product-Terminal
Product-WSL
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 Resolution-Answered
Resolution-By-Design
Resolution-Duplicate
Resolution-External
Resolution-Fix-Available
Resolution-Fix-Committed
Resolution-No-Repro
Resolution-Won't-Fix
Severity-Blocking
Severity-Crash
Severity-DataLoss
spam
this-will-be-a-breaking-change
Tracking-External
WindowsTerminal_Win32
Work-Item
zAskModeBug
zInbox-Bug
No Label Area-Settings Issue-Feature Product-Terminal
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
claunia
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/terminal#11660
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?