Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

enableBreakpointsFor?: { languageIds: string[] }; configurationAttributes?: any; initialConfigurations?: any[]; <ins> aiKey?: string; </ins> win?: IRawEnvAdapter; winx86?: IRawEnvAdapter; windows?: IRawEnvAdapter;


Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

import { TPromise } from 'vs/base/common/winjs.base'; import editor = require('vs/editor/common/editorCommon'); import aria = require('vs/base/browser/ui/aria/aria'); <ins> import { AIAdapter } from 'vs/base/node/aiAdapter'; </ins> import editorbrowser = require('vs/editor/browser/editorBrowser'); import { IKeybindingService, IKeybindingContextKey } from 'vs/platform/keybinding/common/keybindingService'; import {IMarkerService} from 'vs/platform/markers/common/markers';


Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

private viewModel: viewmodel.ViewModel; private configurationManager: ConfigurationManager; private debugStringEditorInputs: DebugStringEditorInput[]; <ins> private telemetryAdapter: AIAdapter; </ins> private lastTaskEvent: TaskEvent; private toDispose: lifecycle.IDisposable[]; private inDebugMode: IKeybindingContextKey<boolean>;


Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

this.toDispose.push(this.session.addListener2(debug.SessionEvents.OUTPUT, (event: DebugProtocol.OutputEvent) => { if (event.body && event.body.category === 'telemetry') { <del> this.telemetryService.publicLog(event.body.output, event.body.data); </del> <ins> const key = this.configurationManager.getAdapter().aiKey; // only log telemetry events from debug adapter if the adapter provided the telemetry key if (key) { if (!this.telemetryAdapter) { this.telemetryAdapter = new AIAdapter(key, this.session.getType()); } this.telemetryAdapter.log(event.body.output, event.body.data); } </ins> } else if (event.body && typeof event.body.output === 'string' && event.body.output.length > 0) { this.onOutput(event); }


Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

}); this.model.updateBreakpoints(data); <ins> if (this.telemetryAdapter) { this.telemetryAdapter.dispose(); this.telemetryAdapter = null; } </ins> this.inDebugMode.reset(); }


Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

private configurationAttributes: any; public initialConfigurations: any[]; public enableBreakpointsFor: { languageIds: string[] }; <ins> public aiKey: string; </ins> constructor(rawAdapter: debug.IRawAdapter, systemVariables: SystemVariables, extensionFolderPath: string) { if (rawAdapter.windows) {


Question:
If this key is set, all telemetry information generated in a debug session of the corresponding debug type will be tagged with that key (so that the data is routed to the correct bucket). what would be a good name for that key? (it should match the name used in other places where this key is used).
this is probably something you want to use...
The functionality for reporting telemetry only supports application insights pipeline, so I suggest calling it something explicit as .
we are not using acronyms in our protocol at all, so not a big fan of , I would rather go with . I would put it as a top level attribute under in the . If this is not provided I would ignore the telemetry event so we never mix the adapter telemtery with our vscode telemetry. What do you think?
yes, put aiKey at the top of . What's about our own debug adapters? Do we get our own keys for them so that their telemetry events go to vscode telemetry?
What we do we with the current adapters telemetry? do we depend on any of them in our current active reporting? If not, let's put them in the standard first party extensions pipeline. Otherwise, we can use the same vscode key, if so I would want make sure that adds standard properties such as machineId and sessionId so the processing scripts can function normally.
For Microsoft owned debug adapters, wouldn't we want their telemetry in the same stream as VS Code so that one could look at all activity for the same session? Or are there other good ways to tie that together?
previously we were reporting telemetry events of all debug adapters to vscode. With the new mechanism we don't do this any more, so we have to make sure that the node-debug adapter (which is shipping with vscode) still gets reported in the same way as before. So I will set the aiKey.

this.initialConfigurations = rawAdapter.initialConfigurations; this._label = rawAdapter.label; this.enableBreakpointsFor = rawAdapter.enableBreakpointsFor; <ins> this.aiKey = rawAdapter.aiKey; </ins> } public get label() {


Question:
opens the current directory, also opens the current directory - not the parent
Repros on master. Also: opens opens etc.
i see the bug and the fix is in - i guess a short term work around is opens the parent directory
yes the fix should be in the next release, adding a slash is a good work around in the meantime.
I hope something good happens here. cause the way things are going. pretty much saying microsoft has lost all control of windows

// Trim whitespaces path = strings.trim(strings.trim(path, ' '), 't'); <del> // Remove trailing dots path = strings.rtrim(path, '.'); </del> return path; }


Question:
when a link, src or url... contains an underscore character ( _ ) , you can't distinguish it from a misplaced space character because of the default underline below the links.
Appears to be impractical to solve using in Chromium until it fully adopts the full CSS 3 spec on . What I'll do is use a instead. Tested locally, and it looks good to me: <img width="454" alt="screen shot 2016-03-30 at 6 04 54 pm" src=""
Fixed via

.monaco-editor .detected-link, .monaco-editor .detected-link-active { text-decoration: underline; <ins> text-underline-position: under; </ins> } .monaco-editor .detected-link-active {


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

"type": "boolean", "description": "%config.enableSmartCommit%", "default": false <ins> }, "git.enableCommitSigning": { "type": "boolean", "description": "%config.enableCommitSigning%", "default": false </ins> } } }


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

"config.ignoreLegacyWarning": "Ignores the legacy Git warning", "config.ignoreLimitWarning": "Ignores the warning when there are too many changes in a repository", "config.defaultCloneDirectory": "The default location where to clone a git repository", <del> "config.enableSmartCommit": "Commit all changes when there are no staged changes." </del> <ins> "config.enableSmartCommit": "Commit all changes when there are no staged changes.", "config.enableCommitSigning": "Enables commit signing with GPG." </ins> }  No newline at end of file


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

): Promise<boolean> { const config = workspace.getConfiguration('git'); const enableSmartCommit = config.get<boolean>('enableSmartCommit') === true; <ins> const enableCommitSigning = config.get<boolean>('enableCommitSigning') === true; </ins> const noStagedChanges = this.model.indexGroup.resources.length === 0; const noUnstagedChanges = this.model.workingTreeGroup.resources.length === 0;


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

opts = { all: noStagedChanges }; } <ins> // enable signing of commits if configurated opts.signCommit = enableCommitSigning; </ins> if ( // no changes (noStagedChanges && noUnstagedChanges)


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

} } <del> async commit(message: string, opts: { all?: boolean, amend?: boolean, signoff?: boolean } = Object.create(null)): Promise<void> { </del> <ins> async commit(message: string, opts: { all?: boolean, amend?: boolean, signoff?: boolean, signCommit?: boolean } = Object.create(null)): Promise<void> { </ins> const args = ['commit', '--quiet', '--allow-empty-message', '--file', '-']; if (opts.all) {


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

args.push('--signoff'); } <ins> if (opts.signCommit) { args.push('-S'); } </ins> try { await this.run(args, { input: message || '' }); } catch (commitErr) {


Question:
VS Code should optionally be able to sign git commits with a given GPG key, as it is a good practice for authorization nowadays.
Doesn't GitHub's authentication basically do the same thing, since you need to auth with GitHub to push to repos you have access to?
GitHub auth is NOT related to GPG-signed commits if I know right.
Basically, I would like built-in functionality for appending the command line argument to , as shown .
Sure, but isn't what it's accomplishing done by GitHub account/email linking? You need to link your email to an account and need credentials to the account to push.
GPG can be used in any git environment (for instance: GitLab, BitBucket, etc.) I though this could be actual after seeing the .
thoughts?
I'd argue that for any given repo, you'd either want to sign all commits or none. Based on that, I suggest to use the git configuration in your repo, , which will make git sign all commits by default. Does that work for you
I use exactly that, but when I try to commit from VS Code with that config attribute set, I get the following error output in the Git console of Code:
I misread the issue, I thought you were talking about the vscode repo starting to sign commits, not adding the feature. while looking into signing commits yesterday, this I came across this
Not just vscode is affected: If you're using an agent: As a workaround (a configuration change affecting not just vscode) it's possible to add to your For example, run Snippet from explaining : From what I've noticed, is now less verbose (doesn't remind me that I "need my passphrase" on ; is completely silent on ). I don't know what else this affects and thus I feel bad for suggesting this, but it works. If you're not using an agent: Again referring to Launchpad, you seem to be out of luck.
Thanks for that Does it solve it for you,
Well, having listened to I'm not signing my commits anymore, but thank you for all the help provided!
. It is not strictly accurate that signing each commit is "totally stupid."
it would be nice if vscode gave me the opportunity to sign a commit.
Signing commits is not "totally stupid" and, in fact, has very real security implications. Not all Git code happens to be "pushed" to Github or BitBucket. Many places use git internally for all sorts of things and git commit signing is a very needed feature and often a requirement. I am using a gpg-agent and still am unable to sign commits in VSCode, for what it's worth.
I found the two places that need to be modified for this to work, but wasn't able to setup the vscode repository properly (not able to run tests, linter hangs, unable to run electron) so I just dropped it. I'm leaving the links to the lines here in hope that someone will pick it up, and soon Funny thing is they both do the same thing, and they are both nearly identical, but one is written in async/await and the other uses plain function arguments instead of an options object. Is there a reason for this? Why not just abstract it out as another module and use it through that, would be less hassle maintaining it (and any similar parts that can be solved via the same solution).
^ seems that git support is divided into two parts - one is git workbench that's in and second is git extension (that's built-in?) Is there any progress on this?
i dont there is any work going on yet. I will pick this up but not until this weekend
I like to confirm I am starting work on this. I will a pull request with a WIP title to show progress soon
Hello here, I recently tried committing with set to . However the issue I encountered is related to my name: it contains an accented 'e' (é) and right now VSCode seems to have some encoding problem (at least with git): ! Which prevents git from detecting the correct GPG key.
Hi! Any progress updates? :)
got all the changes needed mapped now going to add menus items etc should be done soon just lots of test and things to write
I have the change almost complete just tidying up and getting ready to commit.
Pull request Added support to GPG signing hope all is oke
would love to see this.
Me too, it was to the June milestone that got me excited but now its back in the backlog.... So I don't know whats going on. The pull request is this one:
Please, that comment, which is purely subjective, is very old and it's quoting achieves nothing, but FUD. Impersonating authors on GitHub is easily done and signing ALL commits is good practice. Especially with hardware tokens, such as Yubikeys. I mean no harm with , I am merely showing how easy it is to submit a commit by another. I feel GitHub could do more here too. On the main page, images are small and easily distracted (I could even change mine, I guess ... and my name). But the "Verified" means we've signed that commit. I believe it's important, as others seem to have commented also. !
I verify ALL my commit is important and we do use yubikeys here at my organisation
GPG signing provides authentication on the commits themselves. What you said in and subsequent comments are irrelevant to the issue. Because without signing the commit, I can easily fake you as the author and submit a fraudulent patch (e.g. intentionally infringing copyright of your rival company) via other channels (e.g. email) to another committer, who will be having a hard time to know whether you actually wrote the patch or not. And if that committer push the CL to GitHub, GitHub will happily link that to your account. See this commit for example:
Hi all, no need to try to convince me anymore
YEAHHHHH!
This error git commit --quiet --allow-empty-message --file - --all git show gpg: cannot open tty `no tty': No such file or directory error: gpg failed to sign the data fatal: failed to write commit object can be cause by password protected gpg key.
something related to the error you seen:
I got it to work for me, but only after signing a previous commit (~5 minutes prior) manually through the integrated terminal. I have a hunch that the root cause of the error message , is that VS Code is requesting to open the prompt, and failing to do so. If you already entered your password via prompt previously, VS Code signs the commits perfectly fine.
You'll probably want to use a pinentry program that remembers the pass code or prompts graphically. (sorry if terse) On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 08:33 Jeremy Loy, <:
usually you see this problem when you dont things set up properly for gpg signing. that has been my experience
In Linux, I solve /dev/tty problem by adding binary exec of gpg2 path to git global config

all?: boolean; amend?: boolean; signoff?: boolean; <ins> signCommit?: boolean; </ins> } export class Model implements Disposable {


Question:
Integrated terminal master issue: Open question: Currently pressing <kbdesc</kbdwill hide the terminal, this can be a problem for some terminal programs, for example . Perhaps this should be configurable?
Thinking about desktop terminals, such as iTerm, I can only close them via a global shortcut, an button or running in the shell. <kbdEscape</kbdshould not bubble outside to the workbench.
Marked as candidate as it's a very simple change that's been reported a bunch of times.
Cherry picked to release/1.2

return function () { var desktop = gulp.src('resources/linux/code.desktop', { base: '.' }) .pipe(replace('@@NAME_LONG@@', product.nameLong)) <ins> .pipe(replace('@@NAME_SHORT@@', product.nameShort)) </ins> .pipe(replace('@@NAME@@', product.applicationName)) .pipe(rename('usr/share/applications/' + product.applicationName + '.desktop'));


Question:
Integrated terminal master issue: Open question: Currently pressing <kbdesc</kbdwill hide the terminal, this can be a problem for some terminal programs, for example . Perhaps this should be configurable?
Thinking about desktop terminals, such as iTerm, I can only close them via a global shortcut, an button or running in the shell. <kbdEscape</kbdshould not bubble outside to the workbench.
Marked as candidate as it's a very simple change that's been reported a bunch of times.
Cherry picked to release/1.2

return function () { var desktop = gulp.src('resources/linux/code.desktop', { base: '.' }) .pipe(replace('@@NAME_LONG@@', product.nameLong)) <ins> .pipe(replace('@@NAME_SHORT@@', product.nameShort)) </ins> .pipe(replace('@@NAME@@', product.applicationName)) .pipe(rename('BUILD/usr/share/applications/' + product.applicationName + '.desktop'));


Question:
Integrated terminal master issue: Open question: Currently pressing <kbdesc</kbdwill hide the terminal, this can be a problem for some terminal programs, for example . Perhaps this should be configurable?
Thinking about desktop terminals, such as iTerm, I can only close them via a global shortcut, an button or running in the shell. <kbdEscape</kbdshould not bubble outside to the workbench.
Marked as candidate as it's a very simple change that's been reported a bunch of times.
Cherry picked to release/1.2

Name=@@NAME_LONG@@ Comment=Code Editing. Redefined. GenericName=Text Editor <del> Exec=/usr/bin/@@NAME@@ %U </del> <ins> Exec=/usr/share/@@NAME@@/@@NAME@@ %U </ins> Icon=@@NAME@@ Type=Application StartupNotify=true <del> StartupWMClass=@@NAME@@ </del> <ins> StartupWMClass=@@NAME_SHORT@@ </ins> Categories=Utility;TextEditor;Development;IDE; MimeType=text/plain; Actions=new-window;


Question:
Integrated terminal master issue: Open question: Currently pressing <kbdesc</kbdwill hide the terminal, this can be a problem for some terminal programs, for example . Perhaps this should be configurable?
Thinking about desktop terminals, such as iTerm, I can only close them via a global shortcut, an button or running in the shell. <kbdEscape</kbdshould not bubble outside to the workbench.
Marked as candidate as it's a very simple change that's been reported a bunch of times.
Cherry picked to release/1.2

Name[ru]=Новое окно Name[zh_CN]=新建窗口 Name[zh_TW]=開新視窗 <del> Exec=/usr/bin/@@NAME@@ --new-window %U </del> <ins> Exec=/usr/share/@@NAME@@/@@NAME@@ --new-window %U </ins> Icon=@@NAME@@


Question:
Integrated terminal master issue: Open question: Currently pressing <kbdesc</kbdwill hide the terminal, this can be a problem for some terminal programs, for example . Perhaps this should be configurable?
Thinking about desktop terminals, such as iTerm, I can only close them via a global shortcut, an button or running in the shell. <kbdEscape</kbdshould not bubble outside to the workbench.
Marked as candidate as it's a very simple change that's been reported a bunch of times.
Cherry picked to release/1.2

this.focusTerminal(); } })); <ins> this.toDispose.push(DOM.addDisposableListener(this.parentDomElement, 'keyup', (event: KeyboardEvent) => { // Keep terminal open on escape if (event.keyCode === 27) { event.stopPropagation(); } })); </ins> this.toDispose.push(this.themeService.onDidThemeChange((themeId) => { <del> this.setTerminalTheme(themeId); </del> <ins> this.setTerminalTheme(); })); this.toDispose.push(this.configurationService.onDidUpdateConfiguration((e) => { this.setTerminalFont(); </ins> })); this.terminal.open(this.terminalDomElement); this.parentDomElement.appendChild(terminalScrollbar.getDomNode()); <del> let config = this.configurationService.getConfiguration<ITerminalConfiguration>(); this.terminalDomElement.style.fontFamily = config.terminal.integrated.fontFamily; this.setTerminalTheme(this.themeService.getTheme()); </del> <ins> this.setTerminalFont(); this.setTerminalTheme(); </ins> resolve(void 0); }); } <del> private setTerminalTheme(themeId: string) { </del> <ins> private setTerminalTheme() { </ins> if (!this.terminal) { return; } <del> let baseThemeId = getBaseThemeId(themeId); </del> <ins> let baseThemeId = getBaseThemeId(this.themeService.getTheme()); </ins> this.terminal.colors = DEFAULT_ANSI_COLORS[baseThemeId]; this.terminal.refresh(0, this.terminal.rows); } <ins> private setTerminalFont() { let config = this.configurationService.getConfiguration<ITerminalConfiguration>(); this.terminalDomElement.style.fontFamily = config.terminal.integrated.fontFamily; } </ins> public focus(): void { this.focusTerminal(true); }


Question:
I am using VSCode on Ubuntu 14.04 x64 VSCode About: Version 0.10.10 Commit Date 2016-03-07T10:30:20.458Z Shell 0.35.6 Renderer 45.0.2454.85 Node 4.1.1 Steps to Reproduce: a git repo folder a change the "GIT" tab typing a git message I am thinking of a counter starting with 50 (The number of character that'll be used as the short message appearing in git commits), it helps write meaning full messages, without have a word cut and completed in the description part, the behavior is taken as is from GitKraken
My suggestion would be to, instead of always showing a counter, when the first line's length has surpassed 50 characters. I'd gladly take this as a contribution PR! Wanna give it a try?
It seems easy to implement this, can I give it a try?
Absolutely, looking forward to it.
It unfortunately seems as if is no longer working on this.
Please bring it back!

private static COMMIT_KEYBINDING = Platform.isMacintosh ? 'Cmd+Enter' : 'Ctrl+Enter'; private static NEED_MESSAGE = nls.localize('needMessage', "Please provide a commit message. You can always press **{0}** to commit changes. If there are any staged changes, only those will be committed; otherwise, all changes will.", ChangesView.COMMIT_KEYBINDING); private static NOTHING_TO_COMMIT = nls.localize('nothingToCommit', "Once there are some changes to commit, type in the commit message and either press **{0}** to commit changes. If there are any staged changes, only those will be committed; otherwise, all changes will.", ChangesView.COMMIT_KEYBINDING); <ins> private static LONG_COMMIT = nls.localize('longCommit', "Great commit summaries are 50 characters or less. Place extra information in next lines."); </ins> private instantiationService: IInstantiationService; private editorService: IWorkbenchEditorService;


Question:
I am using VSCode on Ubuntu 14.04 x64 VSCode About: Version 0.10.10 Commit Date 2016-03-07T10:30:20.458Z Shell 0.35.6 Renderer 45.0.2454.85 Node 4.1.1 Steps to Reproduce: a git repo folder a change the "GIT" tab typing a git message I am thinking of a counter starting with 50 (The number of character that'll be used as the short message appearing in git commits), it helps write meaning full messages, without have a word cut and completed in the description part, the behavior is taken as is from GitKraken
My suggestion would be to, instead of always showing a counter, when the first line's length has surpassed 50 characters. I'd gladly take this as a contribution PR! Wanna give it a try?
It seems easy to implement this, can I give it a try?
Absolutely, looking forward to it.
It unfortunately seems as if is no longer working on this.
Please bring it back!

placeholder: nls.localize('commitMessage', "Message (press {0} to commit)", ChangesView.COMMIT_KEYBINDING), validationOptions: { showMessage: true, <del> validation: (): InputBox.IMessage => null </del> <ins> validation: (value): InputBox.IMessage => { if (Strings.trim(value.split('n')[0]).length > 50) { return { content: ChangesView.LONG_COMMIT, type: InputBox.MessageType.WARNING }; } return null; } </ins> }, ariaLabel: nls.localize('commitMessageAriaLabel', "Git: Type commit message and press {0} to commit", ChangesView.COMMIT_KEYBINDING), flexibleHeight: true


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

class NoUnexternalizedStringsRuleWalker extends Lint.RuleWalker { <del> private static ImportFailureMessage = 'Do not use double qoutes for imports.'; </del> <ins> private static ImportFailureMessage = 'Do not use double quotes for imports.'; </ins> private static DOUBLE_QUOTE: string = '"';


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

* Writes text to the system clipboard. */ writeText(text: string): void; <ins> /** * Reads the content of the clipboard in plain text */ readText(): string; </ins> }  No newline at end of file


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

public writeText(text: string): void { clipboard.writeText(text); } <ins> public readText(): string { return clipboard.readText(); } </ins> }  No newline at end of file


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

import { Action, IAction } from 'vs/base/common/actions'; import { ActionItem, BaseActionItem, Separator } from 'vs/base/browser/ui/actionbar/actionbar'; import { Scope, IActionBarRegistry, Extensions as ActionBarExtensions, ActionBarContributor } from 'vs/workbench/browser/actions'; <del> import { GlobalNewUntitledFileAction, SaveFileAsAction, ShowOpenedFileInNewWindow, CopyPathAction, GlobalCopyPathAction, RevealInOSAction, GlobalRevealInOSAction, pasteIntoFocusedFilesExplorerViewItem, FocusOpenEditorsView, FocusFilesExplorer, GlobalCompareResourcesAction, GlobalNewFileAction, GlobalNewFolderAction, RevertFileAction, SaveFilesAction, SaveAllAction, SaveFileAction, MoveFileToTrashAction, TriggerRenameFileAction, PasteFileAction, CopyFileAction, SelectResourceForCompareAction, CompareResourcesAction, NewFolderAction, NewFileAction, OpenToSideAction, ShowActiveFileInExplorer, CollapseExplorerView, RefreshExplorerView, CompareWithSavedAction } from 'vs/workbench/parts/files/browser/fileActions'; </del> <ins> import { GlobalNewUntitledFileAction, SaveFileAsAction, ShowOpenedFileInNewWindow, CopyPathAction, GlobalCopyPathAction, RevealInOSAction, GlobalRevealInOSAction, pasteIntoFocusedFilesExplorerViewItem, FocusOpenEditorsView, FocusFilesExplorer, GlobalCompareResourcesAction, GlobalNewFileAction, GlobalNewFolderAction, RevertFileAction, SaveFilesAction, SaveAllAction, SaveFileAction, MoveFileToTrashAction, TriggerRenameFileAction, PasteFileAction, CopyFileAction, SelectResourceForCompareAction, CompareResourcesAction, NewFolderAction, NewFileAction, OpenToSideAction, ShowActiveFileInExplorer, CollapseExplorerView, RefreshExplorerView, CompareWithSavedAction, CompareWithClipboardAction } from 'vs/workbench/parts/files/browser/fileActions'; </ins> import { revertLocalChangesCommand, acceptLocalChangesCommand, CONFLICT_RESOLUTION_CONTEXT } from 'vs/workbench/parts/files/browser/saveErrorHandler'; import { SyncActionDescriptor, MenuId, MenuRegistry } from 'vs/platform/actions/common/actions'; import { IWorkbenchActionRegistry, Extensions as ActionExtensions } from 'vs/workbench/common/actions';


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

registry.registerWorkbenchAction(new SyncActionDescriptor(GlobalRevealInOSAction, GlobalRevealInOSAction.ID, GlobalRevealInOSAction.LABEL, { primary: KeyChord(KeyMod.CtrlCmd | KeyCode.KEY_K, KeyCode.KEY_R) }), 'File: Reveal Active File', category); registry.registerWorkbenchAction(new SyncActionDescriptor(ShowOpenedFileInNewWindow, ShowOpenedFileInNewWindow.ID, ShowOpenedFileInNewWindow.LABEL, { primary: KeyChord(KeyMod.CtrlCmd | KeyCode.KEY_K, KeyCode.KEY_O) }), 'File: Open Active File in New Window', category); registry.registerWorkbenchAction(new SyncActionDescriptor(CompareWithSavedAction, CompareWithSavedAction.ID, CompareWithSavedAction.LABEL, { primary: KeyChord(KeyMod.CtrlCmd | KeyCode.KEY_K, KeyCode.KEY_D) }), 'File: Compare Active File with Saved', category); <ins> registry.registerWorkbenchAction(new SyncActionDescriptor(CompareWithClipboardAction, CompareWithClipboardAction.ID, CompareWithClipboardAction.LABEL, { primary: KeyChord(KeyMod.CtrlCmd | KeyCode.KEY_K, KeyCode.KEY_C) }), 'File: Compare Active File with Clipboard', category); </ins> // Commands CommandsRegistry.registerCommand('_files.windowOpen', openWindowCommand);


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

import { IMessageService, IMessageWithAction, IConfirmation, Severity, CancelAction, IConfirmationResult } from 'vs/platform/message/common/message'; import { IWorkspaceContextService } from 'vs/platform/workspace/common/workspace'; import { getCodeEditor } from 'vs/editor/browser/services/codeEditorService'; <del> import { IEditorViewState } from 'vs/editor/common/editorCommon'; </del> <ins> import { IEditorViewState, IModel } from 'vs/editor/common/editorCommon'; </ins> import { IBackupFileService } from 'vs/workbench/services/backup/common/backup'; import { IWindowsService } from 'vs/platform/windows/common/windows'; import { withFocusedFilesExplorer, revealInOSCommand, revealInExplorerCommand, copyPathCommand } from 'vs/workbench/parts/files/browser/fileCommands'; import { IEnvironmentService } from 'vs/platform/environment/common/environment'; <del> import { ITextModelService } from 'vs/editor/common/services/resolverService'; </del> <ins> import { ITextModelService, ITextModelContentProvider } from 'vs/editor/common/services/resolverService'; </ins> import { IConfigurationService, ConfigurationTarget } from 'vs/platform/configuration/common/configuration'; import { once } from 'vs/base/common/event'; <ins> import { IClipboardService } from 'vs/platform/clipboard/common/clipboardService'; import { IModeService } from 'vs/editor/common/services/modeService'; import { IModelService } from 'vs/editor/common/services/modelService'; </ins> export interface IEditableData { action: IAction;


Question:
when i want to compare a local file with a online resource file, i need to save the online file in project folder, and then do compare. it's a little inconvenient. It'll be great if i can copy the content of the online file, and right-click the local file, and choose "compare with clipboard".
An extension would be ideal for a feature like this.
fyi
It would be great too if also is allowed to compare selection with clipboard.
It would be great if we could compare unsaved files...
I would be open to a PR here, I think it is not a lot of work. Some pointers: register a new text document content provider to be able to open the left hand side of the diff editor to be the contents of the clipboard (pointers: ) register a new action to diff the current editor with the resource that can be handled with from the text document content provider (similar to ) Due to sensitivity of data inside the clipboard it would probably make sense to ask the user for confirmation that the clipboard is accessed. Related to
Has someone taken up this issue? I am a complete beginner to the VSCode codebase, would I be able to contribute to this issue?
not yet, but it seems has started a similar PR in which could be used as input to this one. The difference is that the contents of the left hand side are coming from the clipboard instead of the file on disk.

} } <ins> export class CompareWithClipboardAction extends Action { public static ID = 'workbench.files.action.compareWithClipboard'; public static LABEL = nls.localize('compareWithClipboard', "Compare Active File with Clipboard"); private static SCHEME = 'clipboard'; private toDispose: IDisposable[]; constructor( id: string, label: string, @IWorkbenchEditorService private editorService: IWorkbenchEditorService, @IInstantiationService private instantiationService: IInstantiationService, @ITextModelService private textModelService: ITextModelService, ) { super(id, label); this.enabled = true; this.toDispose = []; } public run(): TPromise<any> { let resource: URI = toResource(this.editorService.getActiveEditorInput(), { supportSideBySide: true, filter: 'file' } ); const provider = this.instantiationService.createInstance(ClipboardContentProvider); const registrationDisposal = this.textModelService.registerTextModelContentProvider(CompareWithClipboardAction.SCHEME, provider); this.toDispose.push(registrationDisposal); if (resource) { const name = paths.basename(resource.fsPath); const editorLabel = nls.localize('clipboardComparisonLabel', "Clipboard ↔ {0}", name); return this.editorService.openEditor({ leftResource: URI.from({ scheme: CompareWithClipboardAction.SCHEME, path: resource.fsPath }), rightResource: resource, label: editorLabel }); } return TPromise.as(true); } public dispose(): void { super.dispose(); this.toDispose = dispose(this.toDispose); } } class ClipboardContentProvider implements ITextModelContentProvider { constructor( @IClipboardService private clipboardService: IClipboardService, @IModeService private modeService: IModeService, @IModelService private modelService: IModelService ) { } provideTextContent(resource: URI): TPromise<IModel> { const model = this.modelService.createModel(this.clipboardService.readText(), this.modeService.getOrCreateMode('text/plain'), resource); return TPromise.as(model); } } </ins> // Diagnostics support let diag: (...args: any[]) => void; if (!diag) {


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

getLineNumberAtVerticalOffset(verticalOffset: number): number; getVerticalOffsetForLineNumber(lineNumber: number): number; getWhitespaceAtVerticalOffset(verticalOffset:number): editorCommon.IViewWhitespaceViewportData; <del> shouldSuppressMouseDownOnViewZone(viewZoneId:number): boolean; </del> <ins> shouldSuppressMouseDownOnViewZone(viewZoneId: number): boolean; shouldSuppressMouseDownOnWidget(widgetId: string): boolean; </ins> /** * Decode an Editor.IPosition from a rendered dom node


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

let targetIsLineNumbers = (t.type === editorCommon.MouseTargetType.GUTTER_LINE_NUMBERS); let selectOnLineNumbers = this._context.configuration.editor.viewInfo.selectOnLineNumbers; let targetIsViewZone = (t.type === editorCommon.MouseTargetType.CONTENT_VIEW_ZONE || t.type === editorCommon.MouseTargetType.GUTTER_VIEW_ZONE); <ins> let targetIsWidget = (t.type === editorCommon.MouseTargetType.CONTENT_WIDGET); </ins> let shouldHandle = e.leftButton; if (platform.isMacintosh && e.ctrlKey) { shouldHandle = false; } <del> if (shouldHandle && (targetIsContent || (targetIsLineNumbers && selectOnLineNumbers))) { </del> <ins> var focus = () => { </ins> if (browser.isIE11orEarlier) { // IE does not want to focus when coming in from the browser's address bar if ((<any>e.browserEvent).fromElement) {


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

e.preventDefault(); this.viewHelper.focusTextArea(); } <ins> }; if (shouldHandle && (targetIsContent || (targetIsLineNumbers && selectOnLineNumbers))) { focus(); </ins> this._mouseDownOperation.start(t.type, e); } else if (targetIsGutter) {


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

} else if (targetIsViewZone) { let viewZoneData = <editorBrowser.IViewZoneData>t.detail; if (this.viewHelper.shouldSuppressMouseDownOnViewZone(viewZoneData.viewZoneId)) { <ins> focus(); this._mouseDownOperation.start(t.type, e); </ins> e.preventDefault(); } <ins> } else if (targetIsWidget && this.viewHelper.shouldSuppressMouseDownOnWidget(<string>t.detail)) { focus(); e.preventDefault(); </ins> } this.viewController.emitMouseDown({


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

} return this.viewZones.shouldSuppressMouseDownOnViewZone(viewZoneId); }, <ins> shouldSuppressMouseDownOnWidget: (widgetId: string) => { if (this._isDisposed) { throw new Error('ViewImpl.pointerHandler.shouldSuppressMouseDownOnWidget: View is disposed'); } return this.contentWidgets.shouldSuppressMouseDownOnWidget(widgetId); }, </ins> getPositionFromDOMInfo: (spanNode: HTMLElement, offset: number) => { if (this._isDisposed) { throw new Error('ViewImpl.pointerHandler.getPositionFromDOMInfo: View is disposed');


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

} } <ins> public shouldSuppressMouseDownOnWidget(widgetId: string): boolean { if (this._widgets.hasOwnProperty(widgetId)) { let widgetData = this._widgets[widgetId]; return widgetData.widget.suppressMouseDown; } return false; } </ins> private _layoutBoxInViewport(position:Position, domNode:HTMLElement, ctx:IRenderingContext): IBoxLayoutResult { let visibleRange = ctx.visibleRangeForPosition(position);


Question:
VSCode Version: Version 1.3.0-insider (1.3.0-insider) OS Version: OS X El Capitan 10.11.5 Steps to Reproduce: on the non-link area of a code lens line that nothing at all happens Would really like it to at a minimum to focus the editor (if not already focused), but we really love it if it move the cursor to the previous line. I find myself VERY often clicking on that area to start typing above it and nothing happens.
I'm assuming (maybe) that this wouldn't be a difficult change -- so if someone had the time to point me in the vague direction, I would be happy to attempt to open a PR for this. :)
PR welcome! :) It is in I would extract the code that does the focus: to a closure called inside the method. Then, at you can call and then : The reason focusing is complicated is because IE has some weirdness around redirecting focus when coming from the URL bar and doing a mouse down. And the already is a good indicator that the view zone does not want to handle mouse events.

private static ID: number = 0; <ins> public suppressMouseDown: boolean; </ins> private _id: string; private _domNode: HTMLElement;