starred/terminal
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/terminal.git synced 2026-02-04 05:35:20 +00:00
Code Issues 19.0k Packages Projects Releases 20 Wiki Activity

A few StateMachine unit tests don't fully test what they purport to #1824

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-01-30 22:37:34 +00:00 by claunia · 1 comment
claunia commented 2026-01-30 22:37:34 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @j4james on GitHub (Jun 21, 2019).

I'm not sure if this is right place to report this, because it's not a bug in the app itself, but it's an issue I noticed in the unit tests, which I think may be considered a bug.

As a specific example, consider the TestCursorKeysMode test in OutputEngineTest.cpp:

TEST_METHOD(TestCursorKeysMode)
{
    StatefulDispatch* pDispatch = new StatefulDispatch;
    VERIFY_IS_NOT_NULL(pDispatch);
    StateMachine mach(new OutputStateMachineEngine(pDispatch));

    mach.ProcessString(L"\x1b[?1h", 5);
    VERIFY_IS_TRUE(pDispatch->_fCursorKeysMode);

    pDispatch->ClearState();

    mach.ProcessString(L"\x1b[?1l", 5);
    VERIFY_IS_FALSE(pDispatch->_fCursorKeysMode);

    pDispatch->ClearState();
}

The second half of this test is assumedly meant to prove that the given escape sequence will reset the cursor keys mode. However, the _fCursorKeysMode flag is false by default, so you could replace that escape sequence with almost anything, including removing it altogether, and the test would still pass.

There are similar problems with TestCursorBlinking, TestCursorVisibility, and possibly also TestAltBufferSwapping.

When I added a similar test, I got around the problem by explicitly setting the flag I was testing to the opposite of what was expected, but I'm not sure if that is the best approach. Another possibility might be using std::optional<bool> instead of just a bool, so the default value could then be a nullopt, and it wouldn't be possible to pass the test based on the default value alone. The downside of that approach is the VERIFY steps become a little more complicated.

Originally created by @j4james on GitHub (Jun 21, 2019). I'm not sure if this is right place to report this, because it's not a bug in the app itself, but it's an issue I noticed in the unit tests, which I think may be considered a bug. As a specific example, consider the [`TestCursorKeysMode`](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/blob/9b92986b49bed8cc41fde4d6ef080921c41e6d9e/src/terminal/parser/ut_parser/OutputEngineTest.cpp#L1162-L1177) test in OutputEngineTest.cpp: ```c++ TEST_METHOD(TestCursorKeysMode) { StatefulDispatch* pDispatch = new StatefulDispatch; VERIFY_IS_NOT_NULL(pDispatch); StateMachine mach(new OutputStateMachineEngine(pDispatch)); mach.ProcessString(L"\x1b[?1h", 5); VERIFY_IS_TRUE(pDispatch->_fCursorKeysMode); pDispatch->ClearState(); mach.ProcessString(L"\x1b[?1l", 5); VERIFY_IS_FALSE(pDispatch->_fCursorKeysMode); pDispatch->ClearState(); } ``` The second half of this test is assumedly meant to prove that the given escape sequence will reset the cursor keys mode. However, the `_fCursorKeysMode` flag is false by default, so you could replace that escape sequence with almost anything, including removing it altogether, and the test would still pass. There are similar problems with `TestCursorBlinking`, `TestCursorVisibility`, and possibly also `TestAltBufferSwapping`. When I added a similar test, I got around the problem by explicitly setting the flag I was testing to the opposite of what was expected, but I'm not sure if that is the best approach. Another possibility might be using `std::optional<bool>` instead of just a `bool`, so the default value could then be a `nullopt`, and it wouldn't be possible to pass the test based on the default value alone. The downside of that approach is the `VERIFY` steps become a little more complicated.
claunia added the Help WantedProduct-ConhostIssue-TaskArea-CodeHealth labels 2026-01-30 22:37:34 +00:00
claunia commented 2026-01-30 22:37:35 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2019):

To add: this is the right place to report this. There certainly are lots of test gaps, and places where our infrastructure could be improved. Any contributions to help us catch those and fix them is greatly appreciated :)

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2019): To add: this _is_ the right place to report this. There certainly are lots of test gaps, and places where our infrastructure could be improved. Any contributions to help us catch those and fix them is greatly appreciated :)
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-CodeHealth Help Wanted Issue-Task Product-Conhost
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#1824
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?