Prompt before closing pane with multiple client apps #9085

@Chips1234 commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2020):

You know, I was going to just close this as a combo of #5301, #2976 and #5065. However, none of those cover this specific case, where we prevent closing a terminal tab/pane when there's more than one client in the process tree.

We really don't have a comprehensive discussion of all these requirements anywhere, do we?

Scenarios

I want to never be prompted for confirmation

I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close the window with multiple tabs

I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a tab with multiple panes

I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients

I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane always

possibly more scenarios?

I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients, but I don't care about closing multiple tabs/panes with a single client in each.

Furthermore, we've only got one setting so far - confirmCloseAllTabs. This basically enables 1 and 2. #5874 enables 3 for everyone, without a way to opt-out.

@zadjii-MSFT I think your comment is covered with #2976

@Chips1234 commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2020): > You know, I was going to just close this as a combo of #5301, #2976 and #5065. However, none of those cover this specific case, where we prevent closing a terminal tab/pane when there's more than one client in the process tree. > > > > We really don't have a comprehensive discussion of all these requirements anywhere, do we? > > > > > > ### Scenarios > > > > 1. I want to never be prompted for confirmation > > 2. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close the window with multiple tabs > > 3. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a tab with multiple panes > > 4. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients > > 5. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane always > > 6. possibly more scenarios? > > 7. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients, but I don't care about closing multiple tabs/panes with a single client in each. > > > > Furthermore, we've only got one setting so far - `confirmCloseAllTabs`. This basically enables 1 and 2. #5874 enables 3 for _everyone_, without a way to opt-out. @zadjii-MSFT I think your comment is covered with #2976

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2020):

Okay yea, i should have been more specific. We want to enable settings to enable/disable the prompts for each of these scenarios. Just prompting before the user quits, regardless of the content, isn't something that I think most people want.

Maybe it's gotta be a flag enum?

enum ConfirmOnClose
{
  Never = 0x0,
  MultipleProcesses = 0x1,
  MultiplePanes = 0x2,
  MultipleTabs = 0x4,
  Always = 0x8,
}

I'm adding the Always as another flag, for "I want to be prompted always, even if there's only one process in one pane in one tab"

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2020): Okay yea, i should have been more specific. We want to enable settings to enable/disable the prompts for each of these scenarios. Just prompting before the user quits, regardless of the content, isn't something that I think most people want. Maybe it's gotta be a flag enum? ```c++ enum ConfirmOnClose { Never = 0x0, MultipleProcesses = 0x1, MultiplePanes = 0x2, MultipleTabs = 0x4, Always = 0x8, } ``` I'm adding the `Always` as another flag, for "I want to be prompted **always**, even if there's only one process in one pane in one tab"

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Aug 14, 2020):

Alright, I think I filled out actually just half this table, but here's an update

I'm not sure the "multipleTabs" columns of this table will be informative, but I might do them monday.

Now I need to make sure that the above scenarios are all reflected as actual cells in this grid.

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Aug 14, 2020): Alright, I think I filled out actually just half this table, but here's an update ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18356694/90295911-c6f5c680-de4f-11ea-9eb2-96d284a9822b.png) I'm not sure the "multipleTabs" columns of this table will be informative, but I might do them monday. Now I need to make sure that the above scenarios are all reflected as actual cells in this grid.

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2020):

Alright, I think I've done this as comprehensively as possible:

We've also got a bunch of scenarios listed above, so to re-iterate:

Scenarios

I want to never be prompted for confirmation
I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close the window with multiple tabs
I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a tab with multiple panes
I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients
I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane always
possibly more scenarios?
I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients, but I don't care about closing multiple tabs/panes with a single client in each.
I want to be prompted always, even if there's only one process in one pane in one tab

The above chart was made with one key assumption. There are basically three actions - closePane, closeTab, and closeWindow. Each one of these actions fundamentally also performs each of the preceding actions on all of the panes/tabs within the tab/window. If any of the preceding actions wants to warn the user, then the executed action should wait for the warning.

So if the user wants to be warned when they close multiple panes in a single tab, and they try to closeWindow a window which has a single tab with multiple panes, that should wait for a warning to be shown.

In my understanding, scenario 5 is no different than scenario 8.

I also considered another setting structure that was more like:

closePaneWarning: ["never", "multipleProcesses", "always"]
closeTabWarning: ["never", "multiplePanes", "always"]
closeWindowWarning: ["never", "multipleTabs", "always"]

This would be a more expressive set of settings with 27 possible combinations (as opposed to the 9 unique cases above). However, if we stick with the same assumption as above, I'm not sure there are actually 27 unique cases. If any child warning "infects" a parent command, then I hypothesize these 27 cases would simplify down to the same 9 cases.

This raises the question if our original assumption is useful or not. Do users really want to be able to be warned when they closeTab with multiple panes, but not when they closeWindow with a tab with multiple panes (simultaneously)? That doesn't really make sense to me. I'm sure there's some user out there who might want that behavior, but I'd argue that it's confusing enough that most users wouldn't want it and it would lead to more confusion than not.

So, in my opinion, using the ConfirmOnClose: [Never, MultipleProcesses, MultiplePanes, MultipleTabs, Always] values make sense to me, and seem to get us the full level of fidelity that would be expected.

Now it's another matter of

how exactly do we express this setting
technically, how do we get a pane close warning to prevent the window from closing?
- This includes questions like: "if the user tries to close the window and one tab doesn't want to close, then do we wait until all that tab's warning is accepted before closing any tabs? What if two tabs want to warn on an exit?"

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2020): Alright, I think I've done this as comprehensively as possible: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18356694/90518691-b9309180-e12c-11ea-85a8-e5153a2f9817.png) We've also got a bunch of scenarios listed above, so to re-iterate: ### Scenarios 1. I want to never be prompted for confirmation 2. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close the window with multiple tabs 3. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a tab with multiple panes 4. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients 5. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane always 6. possibly more scenarios? 7. I want to be prompted for confirmation when I close a pane with multiple clients, but I don't care about closing multiple tabs/panes with a single client in each. 8. I want to be prompted always, even if there's only one process in one pane in one tab <hr> The above chart was made with one key assumption. There are basically three actions - `closePane`, `closeTab`, and `closeWindow`. Each one of these actions fundamentally also performs each of the preceding actions on all of the panes/tabs within the tab/window. **If any of the preceding actions wants to warn the user, then the executed action should wait for the warning**. So if the user wants to be warned when they close multiple panes in a single tab, and they try to `closeWindow` a window which has a single tab with multiple panes, that should wait for a warning to be shown. In my understanding, scenario 5 is no different than scenario 8. I also considered another setting structure that was more like: ``` closePaneWarning: ["never", "multipleProcesses", "always"] closeTabWarning: ["never", "multiplePanes", "always"] closeWindowWarning: ["never", "multipleTabs", "always"] ``` This would be a more expressive set of settings with 27 possible combinations (as opposed to the 9 unique cases above). However, if we stick with the same assumption as above, I'm not sure there are actually 27 unique cases. If any child warning "infects" a parent command, then I hypothesize these 27 cases would simplify down to the same 9 cases. This raises the question if our original assumption is useful or not. Do users really want to be able to be warned when they `closeTab` with multiple panes, but not when they `closeWindow` with a tab with multiple panes (simultaneously)? That doesn't really make sense to me. I'm sure there's some user out there who _might_ want that behavior, but I'd argue that it's confusing enough that most users wouldn't want it and it would lead to more confusion than not. <hr> So, in my opinion, using the `ConfirmOnClose: [Never, MultipleProcesses, MultiplePanes, MultipleTabs, Always]` values make sense to me, and seem to get us the full level of fidelity that would be expected. Now it's another matter of * how exactly do we express this setting * technically, how do we get a pane close warning to prevent the window from closing? - This includes questions like: "if the user tries to close the window and one tab doesn't want to close, then do we wait until all that tab's warning is accepted before closing _any_ tabs? What if two tabs want to warn on an exit?"

claunia commented

@htcfreek commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

@zadjii-msft I read your comment with the szenarios. What technicality means "multiple processes"? Does this means two panes where each of them is running a process (e. g. ssh connection)?

@htcfreek commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): @zadjii-msft I read your comment with the szenarios. What technicality means "multiple processes"? Does this means two panes where each of them is running a process (e. g. ssh connection)?

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

"multiple processes" means that in any pane, there's more than just the immediately attached child running. So case in point would be launching ssh.exe from your "Command Prompt" profile. In that case, the immediate child is cmd.exe, but there's a child of that cmd.exe (the ssh.exe).

It notably could mean one tab, one pane, but in that pane is multiple processes.

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): "multiple processes" means that in any pane, there's more than just the immediately attached child running. So case in point would be launching `ssh.exe` from your "Command Prompt" profile. In that case, the immediate child is `cmd.exe`, but there's a child of that `cmd.exe` (the `ssh.exe`). It notably could mean one tab, one pane, but in that pane is multiple processes.

claunia commented

@htcfreek commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

@zadjii-msft
Isn't this a by design behavior? So if a process is runing in cmd/pwsh the pane always have multiple processes? Then imo the case will be "on running processes/jobs" and not "on multiple processes", which can be confusing.

@htcfreek commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): @zadjii-msft Isn't this a by design behavior? So if a process is runing in cmd/pwsh the pane always have multiple processes? Then imo the case will be "on running processes/jobs" and not "on multiple processes", which can be confusing.

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

Yea? In this case "multiple processes" === "on running processes/jobs".

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): Yea? In this case "multiple processes" === "on running processes/jobs".

claunia commented

@htcfreek commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

Yea? In this case "multiple processes" === "on running processes/jobs".

@zadjii-msft
What do you want to say with the question mark behind Yea?

@htcfreek commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): > Yea? In this case "multiple processes" === "on running processes/jobs". @zadjii-msft What do you want to say with the question mark behind `Yea`?

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

... nothing in particular? It's just what my inner monologue said when I read your comment 😄

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): ... nothing in particular? It's just what my inner monologue said when I read your comment 😄

claunia commented

@aminya commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2021):

Since #11335 was set as a duplicate of this, the scope of the issue needs to be broadened.
I want an option that enables this warning in all cases.

The default value of the option can depend on a particular situation, but there should be one override setting.

@aminya commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2021): Since #11335 was set as a duplicate of this, the scope of the issue needs to be broadened. I want an option that enables this warning in all cases. The default value of the option can depend on a particular situation, but there should be one override setting.

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2021):

I want an option that enables this warning in all cases.

So, you want ConfirmOnClose: Always, thanks!

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2021): > I want an option that enables this warning in all cases. So, you want [`ConfirmOnClose: Always`](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/6549#issuecomment-675494526), thanks!

claunia commented

2026-01-31 01:45:39 +00:00

@major-sam commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2022):

Is it still active issue?

#11335 Maybe simply hide [X] tab button option for some profiles(but keep context menu). Stateless apps will be happy when you'll can't close them by miss click

@major-sam commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2022): Is it still active issue? #11335 Maybe simply hide [X] tab button option for some profiles(but keep context menu). Stateless apps will be happy when you'll can't close them by miss click

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2022):

Yea, it's active in the sense of "we'd like to get to this soon", we've just had other priorities in front of it. Basically, we need to take my comment above, turn it into a spec, get consensus on that, and then just do the work. The actual warning isn't hard, but making sure there's a set of unambiguous settings for all use cases is 😄

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2022): Yea, it's active in the sense of "we'd like to get to this soon", we've just had other priorities in front of it. Basically, we need to take my comment above, turn it into a spec, get consensus on that, and then just do the work. The actual warning isn't hard, but making sure there's a set of unambiguous settings for all use cases _is_ 😄

claunia commented

2026-01-31 01:45:39 +00:00

@schaefsteven commented on GitHub (Jan 12, 2023):

My current workaround for this is to always open two tabs, and that way I can get a confirmation whenever I'm closing a Terminal window. But having the ability to confirm on close when Neovim has unsaved work would be at the top of my wishlist for sure.
Has there been any progress on this? Even if the options aren't added in the GUI, if we could just set them in the .json, that would be fantastic.

@schaefsteven commented on GitHub (Jan 12, 2023): My current workaround for this is to always open two tabs, and that way I can get a confirmation whenever I'm closing a Terminal window. But having the ability to confirm on close when Neovim has unsaved work would be at the top of my wishlist for sure. Has there been any progress on this? Even if the options aren't added in the GUI, if we could just set them in the .json, that would be fantastic.

claunia commented

2026-01-31 01:45:39 +00:00

@mpql commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023):

Yea, it's active in the sense of "we'd like to get to this soon"

Any chance this has been spec'd and / or is slated for kind of soon-ish? 😊

@mpql commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023): > Yea, it's active in the sense of "we'd like to get to this soon" Any chance this has been spec'd and / or is slated for kind of soon-ish? 😊

claunia commented

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023):

Unfortunately not. This keeps on treading water just below the cut line, unfortunately. I might be able to sneak the spec work in soon, but certainly won't have the cycles to do the dev work.

@zadjii-msft commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023): Unfortunately not. This keeps on treading water just below the cut line, unfortunately. I _might_ be able to sneak the spec work in soon, but certainly won't have the cycles to do the dev work.

claunia commented

@mpql commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023):

Appreciate the update! Any progress is good progress if you are indeed able to sneak that spec work in!

@mpql commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023): Appreciate the update! Any progress is good progress if you are indeed able to sneak that spec work in!

claunia commented

@aminya commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023):

I find this specification too complex.
https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/6549#issuecomment-675494526

I believe useful progress can be made by implementing the most critical case which is closing a tab that is in the middle of running some application.

@aminya commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023): I find this specification too complex. https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/6549#issuecomment-675494526 I believe useful progress can be made by implementing the most critical case which is closing a tab that is in the middle of running some application.

claunia commented