Radish alpha
h
rad:z3gqcJUoA1n9HaHKufZs5FCSGazv5
Radicle Heartwood Protocol & Stack
Radicle
Git
cli: use a pager on list commands
Draft did:key:z6Mku263...gR76 opened 8 months ago
did:key:z6Mku263...gR76 opened with revision 79daf0e6 on base 55cdd880 +240 -25 8 months ago
did:key:z6Mku263...gR76 pushed revision 2 96655541 on base f00d1d67 +241 -25 7 months ago

rebased on master

did:key:z6MkwcUR...q1kL commented on revision 2 7 months ago

I have a fixup for this PR, but I fail to publish it right now.

did:key:z6MkwcUR...q1kL pushed revision 3 d8d3d678 on base f00d1d67 +237 -25 7 months ago

Some small fixups.

did:key:z6MkwcUR...q1kL commented on revision 2 7 months ago

Ah, here we go.

did:key:z6Mku263...gR76 pushed revision 4 20cc1897 on base 11fc98c9 +241 -25 7 months ago

rebased on master

did:key:z6MkgFq6...nBGz commented on revision 4 7 months ago

Hey there, sorry for the late reply. We really appreciate your contribution, thanks a lot for providing this patch :) I’ve done some testing and have a few (major) suggestions:

We have a pager in place in radicle_cli, so you could replace table.print_with_pager()? with crate::pager::run(&table)?;, Element::print_with_pager() can be removed then.

The output breaks for me because of overflowing lines in some cases with crate::pager::run(), but it also does with your initial implementation. So maybe we could try to fix radicle_term::io::viewport() instead? For this, I’d prefer to not to shell-out to e.g. stty, but rather try to find a way to make this more reliable using the libraries we have at hand, namely crossterm and console.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out in the Patches channel on Zulip.

did:key:z6Mku263...gR76 pushed revision 5 7c5fa64c on base ed8b0860 +550 -112 7 months ago

rebased

fintohaps rejected 5 months ago

Hey flepied,

Sorry about the delay on replying.

Appreciate the patch and I think the idea of having a pager is definitely something we would like to accept.

However, there are a lot of unrelated changes, including an AGENT.md file, and that is something we cannot nor will not accept as a patch.

If you’re still willing to add this feature, we’d love to accept a change that only implements paging the lists and removing any other unrelated changes.

If any of those changes are helpful, please provide separate patches for them.