terminal/.github/actions/spelling/expect/alphabet.txt

52 lines
598 B
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

AAAa
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035) Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18) <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx * [ ] Schema updated. * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example). With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.) <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
AAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAABBBBBBCCC
AAAAABBBBBBBCCC
AAAAABBBBBBCCC
AAAAABCCCCCCCCC
AAAAADCCCCCCCCC
abcd
Helix Testing (#6992) Use the Helix testing orchestration framework to run our Terminal LocalTests and Console Host UIA tests. ## References #### Creates the following new issues: - #7281 - re-enable local tests that were disabled to turn on Helix - #7282 - re-enable UIA tests that were disabled to turn on Helix - #7286 - investigate and implement appropriate compromise solution to how Skipped is handled by MUX Helix scripts #### Consumes from: - #7164 - The update to TAEF includes wttlog.dll. The WTT logs are what MUX's Helix scripts use to track the run state, convert to XUnit format, and notify both Helix and AzDO of what's going on. #### Produces for: - #671 - Making Terminal UIA tests is now possible - #6963 - MUX's Helix scripts are already ready to capture PGO data on the Helix machines as certain tests run. Presuming we can author some reasonable scenarios, turning on the Helix environment gets us a good way toward automated PGO. #### Related: - #4490 - We lost the AzDO integration of our test data when I moved from the TAEF/VSTest adapter directly back to TE. Thanks to the WTTLog + Helix conversion scripts to XUnit + new upload phase, we have it back! ## PR Checklist * [x] Closes #3838 * [x] I work here. * [x] Literally adds tests. * [ ] Should I update a testing doc in this repo? * [x] Am core contributor. Hear me roar. * [ ] Correct spell-checking the right way before merge. ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments We have had two classes of tests that don't work in our usual build-machine testing environment: 1. Tests that require interactive UI automation or input injection (a.k.a. require a logged in user) 2. Tests that require the entire Windows Terminal to stand up (because our Xaml Islands dependency requires 1903 or later and the Windows Server instance for the build is based on 1809.) The Helix testing environment solves both of these and is brought to us by our friends over in https://github.com/microsoft/microsoft-ui-xaml. This PR takes a large portion of scripts and pipeline configuration steps from the Microsoft-UI-XAML repository and adjusts them for Terminal needs. You can see the source of most of the files in either https://github.com/microsoft/microsoft-ui-xaml/tree/master/build/Helix or https://github.com/microsoft/microsoft-ui-xaml/tree/master/build/AzurePipelinesTemplates Some of the modifications in the files include (but are not limited to) reasons like: - Our test binaries are named differently than MUX's test binaries - We don't need certain types of testing that MUX does. - We use C++ and C# tests while MUX was using only C# tests (so the naming pattern and some of the parsing of those names is different e.g. :: separators in C++ and . separators in C#) - Our pipeline phases work a bit differently than MUX and/or we need significantly fewer pieces to the testing matrix (like we don't test a wide variety of OS versions). The build now runs in a few stages: 1. The usual build and run of unit tests/feature tests, packaging verification, and whatnot. This phase now also picks up and packs anything required for running tests in Helix into an artifact. (It also unifies the artifact name between the things Helix needs and the existing build outputs into the single `drop` artifact to make life a little easier.) 2. The Helix preparation build runs that picks up those artifacts, generates all the scripts required for Helix to understand the test modules/functions from our existing TAEF tests, packs it all up, and queues it on the Helix pool. 3. Helix generates a VM for our testing environment and runs all the TAEF tests that require it. The orchestrator at helix.dot.net watches over this and tracks the success/fail and progress of each module and function. The scripts from our MUX friends handle installing dependencies, making the system quiet for better reliability, detecting flaky tests and rerunning them, and coordinating all the log uploads (including for the subruns of tests that are re-run.) 4. A final build phase is run to look through the results with the Helix API and clean up the marking of tests that are flaky, link all the screenshots and console output logs into the AzDO tests panel, and other such niceities. We are set to run Helix tests on the Feature test policy of only x64 for now. Additionally, because the set up of the Helix VMs takes so long, we are *NOT* running these in PR trigger right now as I believe we all very much value our 15ish minute PR turnaround (and the VM takes another 15 minutes to just get going for whatever reason.) For now, they will only run as a rolling build on master after PRs are merged. We should still know when there's an issue within about an hour of something merging and multiple PRs merging fast will be done on the rolling build as a batch run (not one per). In addition to setting up the entire Helix testing pipeline for the tests that require it, I've preserved our classic way of running unit and feature tests (that don't require an elaborate environment) directly on the build machines. But with one bonus feature... They now use some of the scripts from MUX to transform their log data and report it to AzDO so it shows up beautifully in the build report. (We used to have this before I removed the MStest/VStest wrapper for performance reasons, but now we can have reporting AND performance!) See https://dev.azure.com/ms/terminal/_build/results?buildId=101654&view=ms.vss-test-web.build-test-results-tab for an example. I explored running all of the tests on Helix but.... the Helix setup time is long and the resources are more expensive. I felt it was better to preserve the "quick signal" by continuing to run these directly on the build machine (and skipping the more expensive/slow Helix setup if they fail.) It also works well with the split between PR builds not running Helix and the rolling build running Helix. PR builds will get a good chunk of tests for a quick turn around and the rolling build will finish the more thorough job a bit more slowly. ## Validation Steps Performed - [x] Ran the updated pipelines with Pull Request configuration ensuring that Helix tests don't run in the usual CI - [x] Ran with simulation of the rolling build to ensure that the tests now running in Helix will pass. All failures marked for follow on in reference issues.
2020-08-18 20:23:24 +02:00
abcd
abcde
abcdef
ABCDEFG
ABCDEFGH
ABCDEFGHIJ
abcdefghijk
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035) Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18) <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx * [ ] Schema updated. * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example). With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.) <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
abcdefghijklmnop
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035) Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18) <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx * [ ] Schema updated. * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example). With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.) <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
ABCG
ci: spelling: update to 0.0.16a; update advice (#5922) <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Updates the check spelling action to [0.0.16-a](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/0.0.16-alpha) * update advice -- [sample](https://github.com/jsoref/terminal/commit/57fc13f6c6fa0a79a06acb94de5005904a2e1222#commitcomment-39489723) -- I really do encourage others to adjust it as desired * rename `expect` (there are consumers who were not a fan of the `whitelist` nomenclature) * prune stale items * some `patterns` improvements to reduce the number of items in `expect` <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> :warning: Anyone with an inflight addition of a new file to the `whitelist` directory will be moderately unhappy as the action would only use items from there if it didn't find `expect` (and this PR includes the rename). ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Requires documentation to be updated * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments Runs should be ~30s faster. I was hoping to be able to offer the ability to talk to the bot, but sadly that feature is still not quite ready -- and I suspect that I may want to let projects opt in/out of that feature. <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed * I added a commit with misspellings: https://github.com/jsoref/terminal/commit/57fc13f6c6fa0a79a06acb94de5005904a2e1222 ❌ and ran the command it suggested (in bash). * The commit [itself passes its own testing](https://github.com/jsoref/terminal/commit/78df00dcf6cc7b81ffe2f604881e20552d3c94be) ✔️ The commands were never `cmd`/`psh` friendly. This iteration is designed to make it easier for a bot to parse and eventually do the work in response to a GitHub request, sadly that feature is behind schedule.
2020-05-28 15:01:52 +02:00
ABE
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035) Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18) <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx * [ ] Schema updated. * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example). With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.) <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
abf
BBBBB
BBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBDDDD
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035) Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18) <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx * [ ] Schema updated. * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example). With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.) <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
BBBBBCCC
BBBBCCCCC
BBGGRR
CCE
Helix Testing (#6992) Use the Helix testing orchestration framework to run our Terminal LocalTests and Console Host UIA tests. ## References #### Creates the following new issues: - #7281 - re-enable local tests that were disabled to turn on Helix - #7282 - re-enable UIA tests that were disabled to turn on Helix - #7286 - investigate and implement appropriate compromise solution to how Skipped is handled by MUX Helix scripts #### Consumes from: - #7164 - The update to TAEF includes wttlog.dll. The WTT logs are what MUX's Helix scripts use to track the run state, convert to XUnit format, and notify both Helix and AzDO of what's going on. #### Produces for: - #671 - Making Terminal UIA tests is now possible - #6963 - MUX's Helix scripts are already ready to capture PGO data on the Helix machines as certain tests run. Presuming we can author some reasonable scenarios, turning on the Helix environment gets us a good way toward automated PGO. #### Related: - #4490 - We lost the AzDO integration of our test data when I moved from the TAEF/VSTest adapter directly back to TE. Thanks to the WTTLog + Helix conversion scripts to XUnit + new upload phase, we have it back! ## PR Checklist * [x] Closes #3838 * [x] I work here. * [x] Literally adds tests. * [ ] Should I update a testing doc in this repo? * [x] Am core contributor. Hear me roar. * [ ] Correct spell-checking the right way before merge. ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments We have had two classes of tests that don't work in our usual build-machine testing environment: 1. Tests that require interactive UI automation or input injection (a.k.a. require a logged in user) 2. Tests that require the entire Windows Terminal to stand up (because our Xaml Islands dependency requires 1903 or later and the Windows Server instance for the build is based on 1809.) The Helix testing environment solves both of these and is brought to us by our friends over in https://github.com/microsoft/microsoft-ui-xaml. This PR takes a large portion of scripts and pipeline configuration steps from the Microsoft-UI-XAML repository and adjusts them for Terminal needs. You can see the source of most of the files in either https://github.com/microsoft/microsoft-ui-xaml/tree/master/build/Helix or https://github.com/microsoft/microsoft-ui-xaml/tree/master/build/AzurePipelinesTemplates Some of the modifications in the files include (but are not limited to) reasons like: - Our test binaries are named differently than MUX's test binaries - We don't need certain types of testing that MUX does. - We use C++ and C# tests while MUX was using only C# tests (so the naming pattern and some of the parsing of those names is different e.g. :: separators in C++ and . separators in C#) - Our pipeline phases work a bit differently than MUX and/or we need significantly fewer pieces to the testing matrix (like we don't test a wide variety of OS versions). The build now runs in a few stages: 1. The usual build and run of unit tests/feature tests, packaging verification, and whatnot. This phase now also picks up and packs anything required for running tests in Helix into an artifact. (It also unifies the artifact name between the things Helix needs and the existing build outputs into the single `drop` artifact to make life a little easier.) 2. The Helix preparation build runs that picks up those artifacts, generates all the scripts required for Helix to understand the test modules/functions from our existing TAEF tests, packs it all up, and queues it on the Helix pool. 3. Helix generates a VM for our testing environment and runs all the TAEF tests that require it. The orchestrator at helix.dot.net watches over this and tracks the success/fail and progress of each module and function. The scripts from our MUX friends handle installing dependencies, making the system quiet for better reliability, detecting flaky tests and rerunning them, and coordinating all the log uploads (including for the subruns of tests that are re-run.) 4. A final build phase is run to look through the results with the Helix API and clean up the marking of tests that are flaky, link all the screenshots and console output logs into the AzDO tests panel, and other such niceities. We are set to run Helix tests on the Feature test policy of only x64 for now. Additionally, because the set up of the Helix VMs takes so long, we are *NOT* running these in PR trigger right now as I believe we all very much value our 15ish minute PR turnaround (and the VM takes another 15 minutes to just get going for whatever reason.) For now, they will only run as a rolling build on master after PRs are merged. We should still know when there's an issue within about an hour of something merging and multiple PRs merging fast will be done on the rolling build as a batch run (not one per). In addition to setting up the entire Helix testing pipeline for the tests that require it, I've preserved our classic way of running unit and feature tests (that don't require an elaborate environment) directly on the build machines. But with one bonus feature... They now use some of the scripts from MUX to transform their log data and report it to AzDO so it shows up beautifully in the build report. (We used to have this before I removed the MStest/VStest wrapper for performance reasons, but now we can have reporting AND performance!) See https://dev.azure.com/ms/terminal/_build/results?buildId=101654&view=ms.vss-test-web.build-test-results-tab for an example. I explored running all of the tests on Helix but.... the Helix setup time is long and the resources are more expensive. I felt it was better to preserve the "quick signal" by continuing to run these directly on the build machine (and skipping the more expensive/slow Helix setup if they fail.) It also works well with the split between PR builds not running Helix and the rolling build running Helix. PR builds will get a good chunk of tests for a quick turn around and the rolling build will finish the more thorough job a bit more slowly. ## Validation Steps Performed - [x] Ran the updated pipelines with Pull Request configuration ensuring that Helix tests don't run in the usual CI - [x] Ran with simulation of the rolling build to ensure that the tests now running in Helix will pass. All failures marked for follow on in reference issues.
2020-08-18 20:23:24 +02:00
EFG
EFGh
QQQQQQQQQQABCDEFGHIJ
QQQQQQQQQQABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTQQQQQQQQQ
QQQQQQQQQQABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTQQQQQQQQQQ
QQQQQQQQQQABCDEFGHIJPQRSTQQQQQQQQQQ
qrstuvwxyz
qwerty
QWERTYUIOP
qwertyuiopasdfg
Fix wrapped lines in `less` in Git for Windows (#5771) ## Summary of the Pull Request This PR resolves an issue with the Git for Windows (MSYS) version of `less`. It _doesn't_ use VT processing for emitting text tothe buffer, so when it hits `WriteCharsLegacy`, `WC_DELAY_EOL_WRAP` is NOT set. When this happens, `less` is writing some text that's longer than the width of the buffer to the last line of the buffer. We're hitting the ```c++ Status = AdjustCursorPosition(screenInfo, CursorPosition, WI_IsFlagSet(dwFlags, WC_KEEP_CURSOR_VISIBLE), psScrollY); ``` call in `_stream.cpp:560`. The cursor is _currently_ at `{40, 29}`, the _start_ of the run of text that wrapped. We're trying to adjust it to `{0, 30}`, which would be the start of the next line of the buffer. However, the buffer is only 30 lines tall, so we've got to `IncrementCircularBuffer` first, so we can move the cursor there. When that happens, we're going to paint frame. At the end of that frame, we're going to try and paint the cursor position. The cursor is still at `{40, 29}` here, so unfortunately, the `cursorIsInDeferredWrap` check in `XtermEngine::PaintCursor` is `false`. That means, conpty is going to try to move the cursor to where the console thinks the cursor actually is at the end of this frame, which is `{40, 29}`. If we're painting the frame because we circled the buffer, then the cursor might still be in the position it was before the text was written to the buffer to cause the buffer to circle. In that case, then we DON'T want to paint the cursor here either, because it'll cause us to manually break this line. That's okay though, the frame will be painted again, after the circling is complete. ## PR Checklist * [x] Closes #5691 * [x] I work here * [x] Tests added/passed * [n/a] Requires documentation to be updated ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I suppose that's the detailed description above ## Validation Steps Performed * ran tests * checked that the bug was actually fixed in the Terminal
2020-05-08 23:22:09 +02:00
YYYYYYYDDDDDDDDDDD
ZAAZZ
ZABBZ
ZBAZZ
ZBBBZ
ZBBZZ
ZYXWVUT
ZZBBZ
ZZZBB
ZZZBZ
ci: spelling: update to v0.0.18 (#10035) Co-authored-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> <!-- Enter a brief description/summary of your PR here. What does it fix/what does it change/how was it tested (even manually, if necessary)? --> ## Summary of the Pull Request Upgrade check-spelling to [v0.0.18](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/releases/tag/v0.0.18) <!-- Other than the issue solved, is this relevant to any other issues/existing PRs? --> ## References <!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting--> ## PR Checklist * [ ] Closes #xxx * [x] CLA signed. If not, go over [here](https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com/microsoft/Terminal) and sign the CLA * [ ] Tests added/passed * [ ] Documentation updated. If checked, please file a pull request on [our docs repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/terminal) and link it here: #xxx * [ ] Schema updated. * [ ] I've discussed this with core contributors already. If not checked, I'm ready to accept this work might be rejected in favor of a different grand plan. Issue number where discussion took place: #xxx <!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed or any additional comments/features here --> ## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments I've replaced the `dictionary` directory with `allow` and `reject`. When terminal got check-spelling, I didn't have a way to do `allow`/`reject` (but they were added a while ago). With this release, the bot will complain about items that are in user managed files that wouldn't be valid, this is mostly `-`s in dictionary files, but it also includes numbers `0`..`9` and `_`. If a specific token needs to be accepted but not its sub-elements, the item should be added to `patterns.txt` instead (`D2DERR_SHADER_COMPILE_FAILED` is an example). With this version, check-spelling defaults to only considering tokens with at least 3 letters. It's possible to tune it back to 2 (or even 1), but in testing, the 2 character tokens have ended up not being worthwhile. (This can be [adjusted](https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Configuration#shortest_word) if it turns out that people manage to misspell two character tokens often enough to justify checking them.) <!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well --> ## Validation Steps Performed I ran a number of passes of the spell checker in https://github.com/check-spelling/terminal/actions (note: I tend to delete this repository, so this link may be dead at some point, and action run logs expire).
2021-05-14 15:28:37 +02:00
ZZZZZ