Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add additional platform check for Windows before launching native app. #19812

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Jun 19, 2023
Merged

Add additional platform check for Windows before launching native app. #19812

merged 4 commits into from Jun 19, 2023

Conversation

JamesWTruher
Copy link
Member

@JamesWTruher JamesWTruher commented Jun 15, 2023 •
edited by daxian-dbw

PR Summary

Fix #18874

This change ensures that we do not get the cursor position in preparation for the BufferCell call since it is only supported on Windows. On non-Windows machines this might also cause problems for applications such as expect in which pwsh runs in a session connected by a pty. This change should address the misbehavior described in issue #18874.

PR Checklist

@JamesWTruher
Add additional platform check for Windows before launching native app.
e3212c5 
This change ensures that we do not get the cursor position in preparation for the BufferCell call since it is only supported on Windows.
On non-Windows machines this might also cause problems for applications such as �xpect in which pwsh runs in a session connected by a pty.
This change should address the misbehavior described in issue PowerShell#18874.
@JamesWTruher JamesWTruher added WG-Interactive-Console the console experience WG-Engine core PowerShell engine, interpreter, and runtime labels Jun 15, 2023
iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Jun 15, 2023
View reviewed changes
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/NativeCommandProcessor.cs Outdated
@@ -1691,7 +1691,7 @@ private void CalculateIORedirection(bool isWindowsApplication, out bool redirect

if (_runStandAlone)
{
if (s_supportScreenScrape == null)
if (s_supportScreenScrape == null && Platform.IsWindows)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Usually we use #if !UNIX.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The suggestion was made by @SeeminglyScience in conversation to do it this way - I'll let the two of you sort out this conflicting feedback

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The suggestion was made by @SeeminglyScience in conversation to do it this way - I'll let the two of you sort out this conflicting feedback

That was based on the assumption that RuntimeInformation.IsOSPlatform was a JIT intrinsic, which doesn't seem to be true anyway (even if it were used here). The ifdef is better 👍

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Jun 15, 2023
daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw approved these changes Jun 19, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

@JamesWTruher Please take a look at the CI failures.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw self-assigned this Jun 19, 2023
@pull-request-quantifier
Copy link

This PR has 22 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +22 -0
Percentile : 8.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +4 -0
.ps1 : +18 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

Was this comment helpful? 👍  👌  👎 (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit b9b5136 into PowerShell:master Jun 19, 2023
40 checks passed
@msftbot
Copy link

msftbot bot commented Jun 29, 2023

🎉v7.4.0-preview.4 has been released which incorporates this pull request.🎉

Handy links:

@msftbot msftbot bot mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2023
Closed
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@iSazonov iSazonov iSazonov left review comments

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience left review comments

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw daxian-dbw approved these changes

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT Awaiting requested review from SteveL-MSFT

Assignees

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Labels
CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small WG-Engine core PowerShell engine, interpreter, and runtime WG-Interactive-Console the console experience
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

pwsh (Mac) does not work with "expect" correctly (unusual escape characters printed)
4 participants
@JamesWTruher @daxian-dbw @iSazonov @SeeminglyScience