GNU bug report logs - #61310
Eshell modifying and running output regression

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#61310: closed (Eshell modifying and running output regression)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 18:00:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:59:07 -0800
with message-id <9c7a35b2-a641-f4b4-8130-138ec1870371 <at> gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#61310: Eshell modifying and running output regression
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61310,
regarding Eshell modifying and running output regression
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
61310: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61310
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Morgan Smith <Morgan.J.Smith <at> outlook.com>
To: jporterbugs <at> gmail.com, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Eshell modifying and running output regression
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 23:18:00 -0500

Hello,

eshell allows you to modify the output of a command and run it.  It is a
beautiful thing.

Example:

$ ls
file.el
$

now go up and append "file" to the output and hit enter.

$ ls
file file.el
$ file file.el
color.el: Lisp/Scheme program, Unicode text, UTF-8 text
$


The ability is currently broken because "file.el" has the field property
set to "command-output" and the "file" command that I added has no
property field.  So currently the previous interaction would actually
yield:

$ ls
file file.el
$ file.el
file.el: command not found
$


This was broken in commit 558f04c39e036d2f681f72556627768d7bee9ab5.  Now
adding the field to eshell prompt makes a lot of sense and I like that.
I don't know much about fields but it looks like it is not necessary to
have a command-output field at all.  I propose we get rid of that.  If
you want to keep the field, can we make it sticky or something?  I just
want the above usecase fixed.


Thanks,

Morgan

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: miha <at> kamnitnik.top, Morgan Smith <Morgan.J.Smith <at> outlook.com>,
 61310-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61310: Eshell modifying and running output regression
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:59:07 -0800

On 2/9/2023 10:39 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
> On 2/7/2023 3:37 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
>> Good call. Here's a patch that (mostly) copies those comint functions 
>> over to Eshell.
> 
> Ok, pushed this as ab7c2f8092.

Since no one has complained that my fix didn't work in the past couple 
weeks, I'm assuming all is well here. Closing. (But if it's still 
broken, just let me know.)

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.