### ⇒ [doc link](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/blob/dev/migrie/s/4472-window-management/doc/specs/%235000%20-%20Process%20Model%202.0/%234472%20-%20Windows%20Terminal%20Session%20Management.md) ⇐
## Summary of the Pull Request
This is a more detailed spec for two parts of the "Process Model 2.0" work that's being tracked in #5000. In particular, this spec focuses on the management of Windows Terminal windows, including opening new tabs in existing windows.
Largely, the reader is expected to have already read the spec in progress in #7240, and already be familiar with the concept of "Monarch" and "Peasant" windows as introduced by that spec. For that reason, ⚠ **THIS PR IS TARGETING THE BRANCH FOR #7240** ⚠.
### Abstract
> This document is intended to serve as an addition to the [Process Model 2.0
> Spec]. That document provides a big-picture overview of changes to the entirety
> of the Windows Terminal process architecture, including both the split of
> window/content processes, as well as the introduction of monarch/peasant
> processes. The focus of that document was to identify solutions to a set of
> scenarios that were closely intertwined, and establish these solutions would
> work together, without preventing any one scenario from working. What that
> document did not do was prescribe specific solutions to the given scenarios.
>
> This document offers a deeper dive on a subset of the issues in [#5000], to
> describe specifics for managing multiple windows with the Windows Terminal. This
> includes features such as:
>
> * Run `wt` in the current window ([#4472])
> * Single Instance Mode ([#2227])
## PR Checklist
* [x] Specs: #4472, Specs #2227
* [x] References: #5000, #4472, #2227, #7240
* [x] I work here
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
_\*<sup>\*</sup><sub>\*</sub> read the spec <sub>\*</sub><sup>\*</sup>\*_
### Why are these two separate documents?
I felt that the spec that is currently in review in #7240 and this doc should remain separate, yet closely related documents. #7240 is more about showing how this large set of problems discussed in #5000 can all be solved technically, and how those solutions can be used together. It establishes that none of the proposed solutions for components of #5000 will preclude the possibility of other components being solved. What it does _not_ do however is drill too deeply on the user experience that will be built on top of those architectural changes.
This doc on the other hand focuses more closely on a pair of scenarios, and establishes how those scenarios will work technically, and how they'll be exposed to the user.
### TODO:
* [x] A thought - How will we handle arguments like `--fullscreen`, `--initialSize r,c`? They only apply when creating a new window, right?
* [x] When a `wt -s 1 split-pane` command is executed, we'll need to make sure to not _also_ create a new tab
### ⇒ [doc link](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/blob/dev/migrie/s/5000/doc/specs/%235000%20-%20Process%20Model%202.0/%235000%20-%20Process%20Model%202.0.md) ⇐
## Summary of the Pull Request
This spec is _exceptionally long_, and is currently a work in progress. There are a few more things I'd like to have experimentally verified (though, I'm fairly certain they _will_ work, with the right combination of flags and such). Additionally, a few sections have remaining TODOs before the spec is finished. However, this spec is already fairly long, and I want to give people as much time to get their eyes on it as possible.
### Abstract
>
> The Windows Terminal currently exists as a single process per window, with one
> connection per terminal pane (which could be an additional conpty process and
> associated client processes). This model has proven effective for the simple
> windowing we've done so far. However, in order to support scenarios like
> dragging tabs into other windows, or having one top-level window with different
> elevation levels within it, this single process model will not be sufficient.
>
> This spec outlines changes to the Terminal process model in order to enable the
> following scenarios:
>
> * Tab Tearoff/ Reattach ([#1256])
> * Run `wt` in the current window ([#4472])
> * Single Instance Mode ([#2227])
> * Quake Mode ([#653])
> * Mixed Elevation ([#1032] & [#632])
## PR Checklist
* [x] Specs: #5000
* [x] References: #1256, #4472, #2227, #653, #1032, #632, #492
* [x] I work here
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
_\*<sup>\*</sup><sub>\*</sub> read the spec <sub>\*</sub><sup>\*</sup>\*_
### Plurals and paste tenses
In the past, plurals `foo`+`s` and past tenses `foo`+`ed` were
automatically tolerated. This turned out to be a bad design choice on my
part.
The basic example is that `potatos` would sometimes be treated as a
mistake and sometimes not (depending on the presence of `potato`).
You can see in this PR, that this logic resulted in `Applys` being
accepted as a word along with `AppContainered` -- there's nothing
intrinsically wrong w/ the latter, but unfortunately in order to screen
out the former, my shortcut just couldn't stick around. This means that
the `dictionary`/`expect` files will grow perhaps by a tiny bit, but as
you can see, not really by much.
This is also why `thereses` (a user) was accepted as a word in the past
(therese is in the base dictionary, so `therese` + `s` was acceptable).
### Pull requests
When GitHub initially introduced GitHub Actions, the event for
`pull_request` was created without enough permission for a tool like
this to work properly. I worked around that by using the `schedule`
event. In 2020, they introduced a replacement event
`pull_request_target` which has enough permission. This means that I can
stop relying on the `schedule` event.
### Miscellaneous
* I've folded together some `expect/` files since now is as good a time
as any.
* I've included a hint about `excludes.txt` (I added a similar one for
our primary repo recently, and it came up this week in
`microsoft/terminal` -- @zadjii-msft)
* I've standardized on a default of `.github/actions/spelling` to make
the out of the box experience easier for new adopters, so I'm applying
that change here -- if you're attached to the old directory name,
specifying it is still supported. -- note the directory rename may
cause a merge conflict for people with open PRs and changes to the
contents, this shouldn't be a big problem.
Mike Griese
Josh Soref