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

[PR #19603] Fix dangling search selection using viewport pos #31889

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-01-31 09:50:12 +00:00 by claunia · 0 comments
claunia commented 2026-01-31 09:50:12 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Original Pull Request: https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/19603

State: closed
Merged: Yes

Summary of the Pull Request

Fixes a bug where the dangling selection from a search would be applied to the wrong position. Specifically, the issue is that SetSelectionAnchor() and SetSelectionEnd() expect viewport positions whereas the searcher outputs buffer positions.

This PR simply applies the scroll offset to the search result before calling the functions.

In a separate iteration, I changed the functions to allow for viewport-relative vs buffer-relative positions. However, that ended up feeling a bit odd because this is the only scenario where the functions were receiving buffer-relative positions. I chose this approach instead because it's smaller/cleaner, even though we convert to viewport-relative before the call just to change it to buffer-relative in the function.

Bug introduced in #19550

Validation Steps Performed

The correct region is selected in the following scenarios:
✅ no scrollback
✅ with scrollback, at bottom
✅ with scrollback, not at bottom (selection isn't scrolled to, but I think that's ok. Can be fixed easily if requested)
✅ alt buffer

**Original Pull Request:** https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/pull/19603 **State:** closed **Merged:** Yes --- ## Summary of the Pull Request Fixes a bug where the dangling selection from a search would be applied to the wrong position. Specifically, the issue is that `SetSelectionAnchor()` and `SetSelectionEnd()` expect viewport positions whereas the searcher outputs buffer positions. This PR simply applies the scroll offset to the search result before calling the functions. In a separate iteration, I changed the functions to allow for viewport-relative vs buffer-relative positions. However, that ended up feeling a bit odd because this is the only scenario where the functions were receiving buffer-relative positions. I chose this approach instead because it's smaller/cleaner, even though we convert to viewport-relative before the call just to change it to buffer-relative in the function. Bug introduced in #19550 ## Validation Steps Performed The correct region is selected in the following scenarios: ✅ no scrollback ✅ with scrollback, at bottom ✅ with scrollback, not at bottom (selection isn't scrolled to, but I think that's ok. Can be fixed easily if requested) ✅ alt buffer
claunia added the pull-request label 2026-01-31 09:50:12 +00:00
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 pull-request
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#31889
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?