Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
draft of how to enable shell integration with commands #348
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
draft of how to enable shell integration with commands #348
Changes from 1 commit
84c57cf
4a57790
1a30452
01f2153
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure what you are proposing here. It sounds like PowerShell already has an extension mechanism for predictors and other providers (I assume you mean
ISubsystem
and if so you should probably just say it), and that non-PowerShell shells should have a similar extension mechanism but not managed code?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am also confused what is being proposed here. We ultimately want auto registration of particular feedback providers and predictors right? Is this something shell integration is going to do or how does this related to native commands
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this statement is exclusive to tools that hope to register with feedbackprovider and or predictors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should make it clear that JSON file is for a individual command line tool. Is there a naming convention that must be followed? How is the manifest file distinguished from other possible json files?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe use the name
<--->.shell.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This manifest is for the command and not the shell, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's for shell integration though -- its purpose is for a shell to use it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe
<>.shellintegration.json
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If manifest files don't have to be placed alongside the executable, then the
<name>
part should be exactly the executable name, otherwise there is no easy way to tell if axxx.command.json
file corresponds to an executable. Trying to read theexecuable
key from every.command.json
file along the way of searching inPATH
would be too inefficient.IMHO, the manifest file name should be
<executable-name>.<optional-part-for-differentiating-multiple-manifest>.command.json
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Your proposal seems reasonable. The key thing is that at runtime, the executable is from the manifest content and not the filename of the manifest. I don't know how often executable names collide, but it seems like it would be rare. A convention like:
<executable>.<org/author>.command.json
seems fine.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding this to update
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.