starred/terminal
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/terminal.git synced 2026-02-03 21:25:34 +00:00
Code Issues 19.0k Packages Projects Releases 20 Wiki Activity

Search should display the number of results it finds #8767

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-01-31 01:37:27 +00:00 by claunia · 12 comments
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:27 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

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

when the search term is not found, pressing enter on the find dialog announces nothing. It would be ideal if some message was announced to the effect that it was not found.

When it is found, NVDA reads the search term. I find that this behaviour is not that intuitive.

What does work well is that when escaping out of the find dialog, NVDA's review cursor is positioned at the starting position of the match for you to review around it.

Originally posted by @Neurrone in https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/5421#issuecomment-632829133

Additional Details

With regards to accessibility, UIA should at least somehow notify the user that no results were found.

With regards to general UX, this kind of notification should be revealed in/near the search box. It would be cool if we could say something like "4 of 42 Results" and change it to "No Results" if none are found. But at the very least, somehow displaying "No Results" would be very useful.

Though we could just implement the accessibility approach, if we managed to implement the second approach instead, we would basically get accessibility for free.

(another approach) I think some apps would do some kind of noise when no result was found (though I think that's a bit of an older approach, correct me if I'm wrong). That would be another approach that would "bridge the gap" and solve this problem too.

Originally created by @carlos-zamora on GitHub (Jun 2, 2020). when the search term is not found, pressing enter on the find dialog announces nothing. It would be ideal if some message was announced to the effect that it was not found. When it is found, NVDA reads the search term. I find that this behaviour is not that intuitive. What does work well is that when escaping out of the find dialog, NVDA's review cursor is positioned at the starting position of the match for you to review around it. _Originally posted by @Neurrone in https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/5421#issuecomment-632829133_ ## Additional Details With regards to accessibility, UIA should at least somehow notify the user that no results were found. With regards to general UX, this kind of notification should be revealed in/near the search box. It would be cool if we could say something like "4 of 42 Results" and change it to "No Results" if none are found. But at the very least, somehow displaying "No Results" would be very useful. Though we _could_ just implement the accessibility approach, if we managed to implement the second approach instead, we would basically get accessibility for free. (another approach) I think some apps would do some kind of noise when no result was found (though I think that's a bit of an older approach, correct me if I'm wrong). That would be another approach that would "bridge the gap" and solve this problem too.
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:30 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Neurrone commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2020):

(another approach) I think some apps would do some kind of noise when no result was found (though I think that's a bit of an older approach, correct me if I'm wrong).

Lets avoid that if possible. Some apps like notepad do that for example, but also pop up a dialog saying that nothing is found.

@Neurrone commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2020): > (another approach) I think some apps would do some kind of noise when no result was found (though I think that's a bit of an older approach, correct me if I'm wrong). Lets avoid that if possible. Some apps like notepad do that for example, but also pop up a dialog saying that nothing is found.
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:30 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020):

@DHowett, @carlos-zamora - I have a PoC for the number of results + interactive behavior (search upon every box modification).

I am not sure how severe are the performance implications on a very large buffer - to count the number of results I need to iterate all over all matches to count them (actually I also store them to prevent additional searches). If we are going to productize this, probably we can introduce some threshold on the size of buffer / number of matches beyond which we will show question marks, something like "2000 of ?".

SearchStatus

I lost several hours trying to implement live highlighting of all matches (with another color).. eventually I dieded.. (I guess changing renderer interface is still beyond my level).

  1. Please let me know - if you want this productized
  2. What do you believe is the correct approach to implement highlighting?
@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020): @DHowett, @carlos-zamora - I have a PoC for the number of results + interactive behavior (search upon every box modification). I am not sure how severe are the performance implications on a very large buffer - to count the number of results I need to iterate all over all matches to count them (actually I also store them to prevent additional searches). If we are going to productize this, probably we can introduce some threshold on the size of buffer / number of matches beyond which we will show question marks, something like "2000 of ?". ![SearchStatus](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4639110/102137569-b4be8000-3e63-11eb-91cc-c92715324967.gif) I lost several hours trying to implement live highlighting of all matches (with another color).. eventually I dieded.. (I guess changing renderer interface is still beyond my level). 1. Please let me know - if you want this productized 2. What do you believe is the correct approach to implement highlighting?
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:30 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020):

Let's not do highlighting just yet. There's some changes to the renderer we've been mulling over that might make it easier to implement down the road.

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020): Let's not do highlighting just yet. There's some changes to the renderer we've been mulling over that might make it easier to implement down the road.
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:31 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020):

I'm totally fine with productizing the match counter, however. That's really neat.

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020): I'm totally fine with productizing the match counter, however. That's really neat.
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:31 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020):

I'm totally fine with productizing the match counter, however. That's really neat.

What do you say about the feature flag - required or not?
I already introduced one in the draft, but it kinda doubles the code due to:

  • The setting propagation (I think we need to do something with the amount of boilerplate code required per setting)
  • Two absolutely independent implementations of search
@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020): > > > I'm totally fine with productizing the match counter, however. That's really neat. What do you say about the feature flag - required or not? I already introduced one in the draft, but it kinda doubles the code due to: * The setting propagation (I think we need to do something with the amount of boilerplate code required per setting) * Two absolutely independent implementations of search
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:31 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020):

@DHowett - I also need your insights on what should happen if the buffer changes amid iteration through the search results.

I mean, optimally, we need to re-compute the matches. However, this can be expensive to do on every update (and not that useful probably while text gets emitted).

The alternative is probably: do not update until the next interaction with the searchbox or replace with question marks until the interaction with the user.

Finally, what is the best approach for terminal control to know that the text has changed?

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2020): @DHowett - I also need your insights on what should happen if the buffer changes amid iteration through the search results. I mean, optimally, we need to re-compute the matches. However, this can be expensive to do on every update (and not that useful probably while text gets emitted). The alternative is probably: do not update until the next interaction with the searchbox or replace with question marks until the interaction with the user. Finally, what is the best approach for terminal control to know that the text has changed?
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:31 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020):

@DHowett - bump? 👼

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020): @DHowett - bump? 👼
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:31 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020):

NVM. I will try to use onReceiveOutputFn + ThrottleFunc and hope it will be OK 😊

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020): NVM. I will try to use `onReceiveOutputFn` + `ThrottleFunc` and hope it will be OK :blush:
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:31 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020):

I decided not to perform the search if the buffer changes, just update the number of matches and to replace the index of the match with "?" as appears here:

SearchStatusAutoUpdate

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020): I decided not to perform the search if the buffer changes, just update the number of matches and to replace the index of the match with "?" as appears here: ![SearchStatusAutoUpdate](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4639110/102281109-0126c000-3f37-11eb-956d-318ca5b93e81.gif)
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:32 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020):

So, doing something throttled off of onReceiveOutputFn sounds good, but that is also our primary output path. We need it to be absolutely as performant as possible. We could take one additional branch there, I'd guess, but I wouldn't want that branch to invoke any WinRT things (like checking the visibility of the search box, or what-have-you). How best shall we strike the balance? This function is called CONSTANTLY 😄

Feature flag: nope, this is table stakes and should be present at all times. If a user doesn't want it, they can just not search.

@DHowett commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2020): So, doing something throttled off of onReceiveOutputFn sounds good, but that is also our primary output path. We need it to be absolutely _as performant as possible_. We could take one additional branch there, I'd guess, but I wouldn't want that branch to invoke any WinRT things (like checking the visibility of the search box, or what-have-you). How best shall we strike the balance? This function is called **CONSTANTLY** :smile: Feature flag: nope, this is table stakes and should be present at all times. If a user doesn't want it, they can just not search.
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:32 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2020):

So, doing something throttled off of onReceiveOutputFn sounds good, but that is also our primary output path. We need it to be absolutely as performant as possible. We could take one additional branch there, I'd guess, but I wouldn't want that branch to invoke any WinRT things (like checking the visibility of the search box, or what-have-you). How best shall we strike the balance? This function is called CONSTANTLY 😄

Feature flag: nope, this is table stakes and should be present at all times. If a user doesn't want it, they can just not search.

Yeah.. good luck to me with the performance 😄 I believe there is much I will need to do about it.
Yet.. I will be happy if you could take a look after I merge the live updates and cleanup the feature flag, to review the overall direction (before I deep dive into optimizations).

@Don-Vito commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2020): > > > So, doing something throttled off of onReceiveOutputFn sounds good, but that is also our primary output path. We need it to be absolutely _as performant as possible_. We could take one additional branch there, I'd guess, but I wouldn't want that branch to invoke any WinRT things (like checking the visibility of the search box, or what-have-you). How best shall we strike the balance? This function is called **CONSTANTLY** 😄 > > Feature flag: nope, this is table stakes and should be present at all times. If a user doesn't want it, they can just not search. Yeah.. good luck to me with the performance 😄 I believe there is much I will need to do about it. Yet.. I will be happy if you could take a look after I merge the live updates and cleanup the feature flag, to review the overall direction (before I deep dive into optimizations).
claunia commented 2026-01-31 01:37:32 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2022):

@Neurrone since you were the one who originally reported this, I wanted to give you the heads up: we've got a binary "results found" / "no results" announcement in #12301. We're gonna keep this one generally open for displaying the number of results in the search box, a la #8588. When that lands, we can refine the announcement to actually include the number of results.

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2022): @Neurrone since you were the one who originally reported this, I wanted to give you the heads up: we've got a binary "results found" / "no results" announcement in #12301. We're gonna keep this one generally open for displaying the number of results in the search box, a la #8588. When that lands, we can refine the announcement to actually include the number of results.
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 A11yMAS A11ySev3 A11yTTValidated A11yWCAG Area-Accessibility Area-UserInterface Disability-Blind HCL-E+D HCL-WindowsTerminal In-PR InclusionBacklog InclusionBacklog-Windows TerminalWin32 Issue-Feature Needs-Tag-Fix Product-Terminal WindowsTerminal_Win32
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#8767
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?