search

akinomyoga / ble.sh

Bash Line Editor―a line editor written in pure Bash with syntax highlighting, auto suggestions, vim modes, etc. for Bash interactive sessions.
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
2.6k stars 82 forks source link

[WSL2] input delay #96

Open jmederosalvarado opened 3 years ago

jmederosalvarado commented 3 years ago

ble version: 0.4.0-devel3+0506df2 Bash version: 5.0.17(1)-release, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Hi. This project is great.

Basically I'm having performance issues, there is a perceptible delay between my key strokes and the letter appearing on the screen. Is this something that should be expected ? I'm currently under Ubuntu 20.04 on WSL2. I'm coming from zsh and I would really love to use bash, but syntax-hightlight and autocomplete features like the ones you provide are a must have. However performance issues are a deal breaker.

I see there are other open issues related to performance, but I saw they were more specifically related to autocomplete or some other features. Please let me know if I should close this and continue the discussion in those open issues.

Summary

(Edited by @akinomyoga)

Here I summarize the discussions made here. There can be various causes that slows down the response in WSL2. Depending on the actual bottleneck in your environment, maybe you can take the following workarounds.

Remove slow Windows filesystems on /mnt from PATH

It is known that the Windows filesystems mounted on /mnt is very slow microsoft/WSL#4197. When PATH contains directories under /mnt, the completion becomes slow. One solution is to remove /mnt/* from the environment variable PATH:

From https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh/issues/96#issuecomment-912957463

If you are fine with removing all the Windows paths from PATH, you can just put the following command in your blerc:

ble/path#remove-glob PATH '/mnt/*'

Another solution is to configure wsl so that it doesn't include Windows paths in the environment variable on the startup of the shell:

From https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh/issues/96#issuecomment-933205073

You can also create a file called /etc/wsl.conf and put this:

[interop]
appendWindowsPath = false

More info can be found in WSL's docs here.

Integration with bash-preexec to remove the overhead of DEBUG trap

This has been solved by introducing a proper support for the integration of ble.sh and bash-preexec. When bash-preexec is loaded, ble.sh automatically detects it and properly communicate with the loaded bash-preexec. Please just update ble.sh to the latest master. See also https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh/issues/96#issuecomment-1019432190.

Disable auto-complete

If the above settings does not work, maybe you can turn off auto-complete or set a delay for auto-complete.

From https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh/issues/96#issuecomment-813181834

$ bleopt complete_auto_complete=

[...] you can configure bleopt complete_auto_delay (the delay of auto-complete) so as to reduce the frequency of auto-complete, e.g.,

# blerc
bleopt complete_auto_delay=300
akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

Thank you. OK, I have set up WSL2 with Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and could reproduce the small delay even after disabling auto-complete (although the delay is almost unnoticeable in my environment). It seems that the plain Bash doesn't have the delay in WSL2. I don't see the delay either in Cygwin or genuine Linux systems. This must be related to some characteristics of WSL2.

I'll take a look later, but I'm busy recently so would appreciate it if you could narrow down the bottleneck. Thank you!

jmederosalvarado commented 3 years ago

I kind of narrowed it down. It turns out the delay only happens (or at at least is most noticeable) when I type the very first character after starting my terminal session, subsequent keystrokes appear to behave normal. In addition this only happens when I override some settings in the blerc file. Particularly I'm changing the syntax highlight colors, so my blerc file only contains a bunch of calls to ble-color-setface. Please let me know if this makes sense.

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

It turns out the delay only happens (or at at least is most noticeable) when I type the very first character after starting my terminal session,

I'm not sure, but this is possibly related to auto-complete. Is the delay still present after disabling auto-complete by the following command?

$ bleopt complete_auto_complete=

If it is the delay by auto-complete, you can configure bleopt complete_auto_delay (the delay of auto-complete) so as to reduce the frequency of auto-complete, e.g.,

# blerc
bleopt complete_auto_delay=300

In addition this only happens when I override some settings in the blerc file. Particularly I'm changing the syntax highlight colors, so my blerc file only contains a bunch of calls to ble-color-setface.

Ah, OK. ble.sh defers the initialization of faces until it is first required. It seems the deferred settings of faces takes some time in your environment. I'll check it later.

jmederosalvarado commented 3 years ago

Oh I see. If ble.sh defers the initialization of faces until it is first required, then that would explain the problem. There are a lot of calls to ble-color-setface in my blerc file, so if they are all run once I type for the first time, we should expect the delay. Is there any way to tweak tis behaviour, maybe some kind of flag or config to make ble.sh evaluate calls to ble-color-setface when blerc file is sourced ????

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

Hi @akinomyoga!

I was about to open an issue related to performance in WSL2, but I saw that this is already open. I'm facing issues too. I'll try to elaborate.

While auto-complete and auto-suggestions work fine, there's a very perceptible lag on input (delay between typing and characters appearing). I'm on a laptop, so power consumption might be interfering with how snappy the input is. Therefore I've tried to record on both battery-mode and plugged-in mode.

battery wsl_slow

plugged-in wsl_fast

Both these have very perceptible lag, but the typing is slightly more responsive in plugged-in mode. I have only 3 lines in my blerc

bleopt history_share=1                                                                    
ble-bind -f up 'history-search-backward hide-status:immediate-accept:point=end'           
ble-bind -f down 'history-search-forward hide-status:immediate-accept:point=end'

Note that this lag doesn't appear in WSL2 at all (whether on battery or plugged-in) in zsh, pwsh or vanilla bash.

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

@rashil2000 Thank you for the information!

First, I need to note that ble.sh is different from the normal line editors of the shells which are implemented in the compiler languages such as C and C#, so the performance difference is inevitable. In particular, when the computer is slow, there might be nothing that we can do. Nevertheless, if you could point out the bottleneck of ble.sh, I'm not reluctant to improve it, but generally, performance issues wouldn't be completely resolved in slow computers as far as ble.sh is implemented in Bash script.

In your case, I'm not sure if there is any bottleneck that significantly worsens the performance, or just the entire processing takes a long time in the battery mode, but I might do something in the former case. I implemented ble.sh so that the auto-complete doesn't interfere with the user input processing, so there are two possibilities: 1) the bottleneck lies outside of auto-complete, or 2) the user-input detection becomes slow in the battery mode. I have related questions:

$ ble-measure -a 50 'ble/util/msleep 10
$ bleopt complete_auto_complete=
$ bleopt complete_menu_filter=
$ bleopt complete_auto_menu=
$ bleopt highlight_filename=
$ bleopt highlight_variable=
rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

...performance issues wouldn't be completely resolved in slow computers as far as ble.sh is implemented in Bash script.

I have a gaming laptop [Specs: i7-8750H, 6 cores (12 threads), 16GB RAM, GTX 1060 GB graphics]. I don't think the system is a slow one. In any case, to completely eliminate any possibility of doubt, I conducted an elaborate experiment. I created 2 virtual machines, both running Ubuntu:

In both these VMs, ble.sh runs buttery smooth - no input lag/latency. Note that they're not particularly heavily-specced VMs. This leads me to believe that the performance is certainly not a ble.sh issue. It almost exclusively occurs on WSL (and sometimes MSYS2, or even Termux (Android)). However, the amazing features of ble.sh have spoilt me, and I would like to use it everywhere possible (which includes WSL2, albeit with some workarounds, if possible).

  • Q1: What are the results of the following command in the battery mode and the plugged-in mode?
10435.150 usec/eval: ble/util/msleep 10 (x10) # battery
10111.150 usec/eval: ble/util/msleep 10 (x10) # plugged-in
  • Q2: When you turn off auto-complete and other background processing, does the response in the battery mode change?

No effect

  • Q3: With the following settings In addition to the above settings, does the response in the battery mode change?

Very slight improvement

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

Thanks for the information and answers. From these answers, it seems that the delay is caused by somewhere not related to the auto-complete or syntax-highlighting based on the filenames. Another possibility that causes the delay is the access to /tmp which is a RAM disk on many Linux distributions but is not in WSL2 by default.

$ ble-measure -a 5 'ble/util/assign a "echo $((b++))"'

I have also tested with WSL2 in my environment. It seems that I also have a very small delay with WSL2 (though I'm not sure if this is the same issue as the one that you observe). I tried to figure out the cause of the small delay, but I found some strange behavior: While I observe the delay when I open the WLS2 through the "Ubuntu 20.04 LTS" icon in the Windows start menu, it seems that I don't have the delay if I connect to the WSL2 through ssh from Cygwin.

The terminal that opens up by the start menu icon seems to be actually the command prompt (at least the property window which can be opened from the shortcut menu of the window icon is that of the command prompt). Maybe the delay is related to the terminal or some interface of the connection between the WSL2 subsystem and the Windows subsystem.

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago
  • Q4: What are the result of the following command in the battery and plugged-in modes respectively.
1314.331 usec/eval: ble/util/assign a "echo $((b++))" (x100) # battery
 827.690 usec/eval: ble/util/assign a "echo $((b++))" (x100) # plugged-in
  • Q5: Which terminal do you use for WSL2? Or, how do you connect to WSL2?

I start it using the wsl command. This is the same command that the Start menu shortcut uses. It is the recommended way of starting/stopping/managing WSL distributions.

  • Q6: If you connect to the WSL2 using ssh, do you experience the same delay in the battery mode?

I don't have Cygwin set up on my machine, but I could install openssh on MSYS2 (pacman -S openssh). But since Windows 10 already comes with the OpenSSH client pre-installed (at C:\Windows\System32\OpenSSH\ssh.exe), I used that. Surprisingly, I experience zero input lag as you described, even on battery mode. Ble.sh runs buttery-smooth.

It's definitely an issue with the wsl command. However, there are a few points to note:

  1. WSL2 does not support systemd services. As such, the ssh daemon will have to be started manually each time a distro is started.
  2. WSL2's network configuration is NAT'd, which means the IP address will change every time WSL2 is restarted. There are ways around it, but they're not pretty. Would love to hear what method you use to get around this.
  3. When using the wsl command, Windows sets up some useful variables inside the WSL2 shell, like these: 
    WSL_DISTRO_NAME=arch-linux
WSL_INTEROP=/run/WSL/4145_interop

    They are particularly useful for detecting if you're on WSL for generic linux apps/scripts. When using ssh, they don't get set.

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

Needless to say, the disparity between wsl and ssh is huge (although ble.sh is the first application where I've observed this).

Do you think I should report this in the official WSL repo (citing this issue as source)?

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

OK, thank you for your information. As you have experienced the zero delay with ssh, the delay that I observe in my system seems to be the same issue with yours. I'm not sure if we can do anything from the ble.sh side, but as readline and Zsh Line Editor don't share the issue, maybe some specific operation that ble.sh uses is slow with the wsl connection. I will later test it in my environment.

Do you think I should report this in the official WSL repo (citing this issue as source)?

Currently, the issue is not so clear, and I think they are so busy that they don't have time to investigate such an obscure issue that "some specific application is slow in some specific situation". I'd think the issue would be just ignored at best (unless there are reports from many different people on the same issue with ble.sh which is not likely).

We may report it only after we have identified what specific operation causes the delay of wsl.

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

We may report it only after we have identified what specific operation causes the delay of wsl.

Okay, I understand that.

Thank you for your help so far and the ssh tip!

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

Okay, I somehow missed this, but I changed my default shell in WSL2 to zsh, and I can observe the same input delay in zsh, when launched through the wsl command. The delay is absent through ssh.

Though I could observe the difference only in battery mode, there's definitely something wrong with the wsl binary.

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

Hmm, that's interesting. In spite of that, Readline still doesn't have the delay?

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

No, both vanilla bash (Readline) and surprisingly, pwsh, respond exactly the same irrespective of whether they were started through wsl or ssh.

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

I think I now found the reason for the delay in my environment. When we log into the WSL2 system through wsl, the environment variable PATH contains the directories of Windows filesystems.

$ (IFS=:; printf '%s\n' $PATH)
/home/murase/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/local/bin
/usr/sbin
/usr/bin
/sbin
/bin
/usr/games
/usr/local/games
/mnt/c/Program Files (x86)/Intel/iCLS Client/
/mnt/c/Program Files/Intel/iCLS Client/
/mnt/c/WINDOWS/system32
/mnt/c/WINDOWS
/mnt/c/WINDOWS/System32/Wbem
/mnt/c/WINDOWS/System32/WindowsPowerShell/v1.0/
/mnt/c/Program Files (x86)/Intel/Intel(R) Management Engine Components/DAL
/mnt/c/Program Files/Intel/Intel(R) Management Engine Components/DAL
/mnt/c/Program Files (x86)/Intel/Intel(R) Management Engine Components/IPT
/mnt/c/Program Files/Intel/Intel(R) Management Engine Components/IPT
/mnt/c/Program Files (x86)/Symantec/VIP Access Client/
/mnt/c/Program Files/Intel/WiFi/bin/
/mnt/c/Program Files/Common Files/Intel/WirelessCommon/
/mnt/c/WINDOWS/System32/OpenSSH/
/mnt/c/Program Files/nodejs/
/mnt/c/Users/murase/AppData/Local/Microsoft/WindowsApps
/mnt/c/Users/murase/AppData/Roaming/npm
/mnt/c/Users/murase/AppData/Local/GitHubDesktop/bin
/mnt/c/Users/murase/AppData/Local/Programs/Microsoft VS Code/bin
/snap/bin

On the other hand, when we log into WSL2 through ssh, we only have the directories inside the WSL2 system in the PATH environment variable.

$ (IFS=:; printf '%s\n' $PATH)
/home/murase/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/local/bin
/usr/sbin
/usr/bin
/sbin
/bin
/usr/games
/usr/local/games
/snap/bin

It seems like the access to the Windows directories is very slow. For example, you can list the command names available in PATH by compgen -c. I measured the time with Bash logged in from wsl and Bash logged in from ssh:

# From ssh
$ time compgen -c | wc
   5102    5102   91918

real    0m0.088s
user    0m0.058s
sys     0m0.038s

# From wsl
$ time compgen -c | wc
  10017   10019  173085

real    0m30.123s
user    0m0.546s
sys     0m4.682s

It's 300 times slower (30.123/0.088 = 342) with wsl compared to the time with ssh. It must be some problem in the bridge of the filesystem between the WSL2 subsystem and the Windows subsystem. It seems this is the notorious performance issue of WSL2 discussed in https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4197.

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

I'm not sure if we can work around this problem.

If you are fine with removing all the Windows paths from PATH, you can just put the following command in your blerc:

ble/path#remove-glob PATH '/mnt/*'
rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

Oh, so the input delay is because the shell is trying to complete command names (which are slower to lookup in /mnt)?

Your fix of trimming the PATH to exclude Windows mounts solves the issue, even in zsh.

rashil2000 commented 3 years ago

If you are fine with removing all the Windows paths from PATH, you can just put the following command in your blerc:

ble/path#remove-glob PATH '/mnt/*'

You can also create a file called /etc/wsl.conf and put this:

[interop]
appendWindowsPath = false

More info can be found in WSL's docs here.

akinomyoga commented 3 years ago

Oh, thank you for the information!

SuperSandro2000 commented 2 years ago

I have probably a hard to work environment. I am using WSL2 with sbp (simple bash prompt) inside of genie. I also have many hooks inside my PS1 including direnv, zoxide, tmux continuum and I also use bash_preexec with wezterm and a custom script to sync my shell history. I also have over 55 000 entries in my history which fzf can handle very well but I am not sure about blesh.

Removing the windows mounts from PATH and adding aliases for the two windows programs I use, already improved the performance by a lot. I am still facing around a second of delay when doing Ctrl+C with an empty prompt. How can I assist to fix that?

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

There are various possibilities, so I don't know what actually causes the problem. You could actually turn off/on these settings one by one to identify what is the bottleneck.

custom script to sync my shell history.

It depends on the exact setup in your script, but a typical setting will cause the reloading of the entire history. If that is the case, it will causes also the initialization of history data used by ble.sh, which has a large cost. Could you instead use bleopt history_share=1 when ble.sh is loaded? bleopt history_share=1 provides a proper support unlike a fragile hack like history -a && history -c && history -r.

I also use bash_preexec

bash-preexec also uses a fragile hack using DEBUG trap. Again, ble.sh provides proper supports for blehook PRECMD, PREEXEC and POSTEXEC. I recommend using them instead of bash-preexec when ble.sh is loaded.

including direnv, zoxide

I'm not sure what those projects do in PROMPT_COMMAND or PS1, but if they want to detect the PWD change, you may instead use blehook CHPWD.

I am still facing around a second of delay when doing Ctrl+C with an empty prompt.

Have you checked if that delay is only present with ble.sh enabled? Or, do you experience a similar delay even without ble.sh?

SuperSandro2000 commented 2 years ago

There are various possibilities, so I don't know what actually causes the problem.

I didn't expect that you magically know the solution but could give me some general hints for what to look at.

You could actually turn off/on these settings one by one to identify what is the bottleneck.

I tried a few things and it definitely comes from my $PROMPT_COMMAND. When I clear the variable the lag is almost not noticeable.

bleopt history_share=1 provides a proper support unlike a fragile hack like history -a && history -c && history -r.

that works and improves things slightly. Only downside I found is that it does not work when aborting a command with Ctrl+C and the reloading history prompt is a bit more annoying than silently doing it in the background.

I recommend using them instead of bash-preexec when ble.sh is loaded.

Sounds awesome but that will be a bit more tricky for me since I am using bash-preexec embedded into wezterm. I think I need to add proper support for blesh into it but that shouldn't be a problem.

I'm not sure what those projects do in PROMPT_COMMAND or PS1, but if they want to detect the PWD change,

direnv changes enviroment variables based on config files. That could be tricky to move to hooks. zoxide records PWD changes and provides quick jumps to them. That can certainly be moved to the CHPWD hook.

Have you checked if that delay is only present with ble.sh enabled? Or, do you experience a similar delay even without ble.sh?

I have a very slight delay without blesh and a bigger one with blesh. It improves by a lot when I clear my PROMPT_COMMAND.

Thanks for all the pointers. I hope when I cleaned up my BASH_PROMPT everything runs a bit smoother. If not I reach out for help again.

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

Only downside I found is that it does not work when aborting a command with Ctrl+C

Thanks for the report. This is stuff that I can easily fix. I have fixed it 8dbefe0.

You could actually turn off/on these settings one by one to identify what is the bottleneck.

I tried a few things and it definitely comes from my $PROMPT_COMMAND. When I clear the variable the lag is almost not noticeable.

OK, but I guess there are still multiple plugins that hook to PROMPT_COMAMND in your setup, such as bash-preexec, direnv, zoxide, sbp, etc. I meant by one-by-one that you might be able to identify which of these plugins in PROMPT_COMMAND causes the dominant delay.

I recommend using them instead of bash-preexec when ble.sh is loaded.

Sounds awesome but that will be a bit more tricky for me since I am using bash-preexec embedded into wezterm. I think I need to add proper support for blesh into it but that shouldn't be a problem.

I sometimes think that maybe I could submit to the upstream bash-preexec a PR that adds codes specialized to ble.sh which will be enabled when ble.sh is detected, but I'm not sure they would accept the codes for specific third party projects. After all, ble.sh is a minor project that only a small number of people know compared to bash-preexec.

I have a very slight delay without blesh and a bigger one with blesh. It improves by a lot when I clear my PROMPT_COMMAND.

Thank you for the information. Then, I guess some interaction between ble.sh and the other plugins cause the delay.

Thank you.

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

@SuperSandro2000 I have created a patch to bash-preexec: https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/compare/master...akinomyoga:integrate-blesh. This finally became a relatively large chunk of codes, but I actually think we can embed most of the codes at the ble.sh side if bash-preexec could expose this information in a public/stable API or a new function __bp_uninstall that removes the hooks of bash-preexec using PROMPT_COMMAND and the DEBUG trap.

Then, we actually don't need to modify the codes that use bash-preexec like https://github.com/wez/wezterm/pull/1572 and https://github.com/ellie/atuin/pull/267.

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

Now integration with bash-preexec implemented

@SuperSandro2000 I have implemented the integration with bash-preexec at the ble.sh side (e85f52cb1b4d21fbf0e56f133f5eeecf8e1def9b and https://github.com/akinomyoga/blesh-contrib/commit/9fd72ecb2c6ebc62aadcea47edd7c0d699b8f4c4). Now, we don't need a special patched version of bash-preexec. So, if it works correctly, https://github.com/wez/wezterm/pull/1572 and https://github.com/ellie/atuin/pull/267 are actually not needed anymore. Could you test the latest version of ble.sh? The integration is automatically enabled when both bash-preexec and ble.sh are loaded, so you can just update ble.sh.

Actually, I want several stable public API of bash-preexec, but now the integration is relying on the current internals of bash-preexec. Later, I think I'll open a PR or an issue that requests some public and stable APIs of bash-preexec at the upstream bash-preexec. In any way, I'll make the integration work with both the current internal interfaces of bash-preexec and also the future possible public APIs.

The original bash-preexec uses DEBUG trap for preexec, which means that the DEBUG trap handler of bash-preexec is called for every single shell command. For example, ble.sh processes everything in the shell script so will process hundreds or thousands of lines of codes for a single keystroke for example, which means that the DEBUG handler of bash-preexec is called hundreds or thousands of times. I think that made the line editor significantly slow. A similar problem with bash-preexec is also reported in Bash-it at https://github.com/Bash-it/bash-it/issues/1943.

In this integration, the DEBUG trap set by bash-preexec is removed so that there is no overhead by the bash-preexec DEBUG trap anymore. Since ble.sh provides the proper support for these hooks (instead of using hacks that bash-preexec uses), I believe most of the problems coming with bash-preexec would be solved with this integration: such as https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/issues/115, https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/issues/104, https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/issues/116 (I'm actually not sure about what is the expected behavior, but I believe ble.sh's choice is one understandable one), https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/issues/100, https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/issues/25, https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/issues/6.

Maybe @NoahGorny, @cornfeedhobo, and @gaelicWizard might also be interested in it. In bash-it, you can try it by installing ble.sh to the default location and enabling blesh plugin (see discussion in https://github.com/Bash-it/bash-it/pull/1884). I would appreciate it if you could also test it at the bash-it side if any of you are interested. I have already tried it with bash-it a little where it looks working correctly, but I haven't yet deeply tested it with bash-it. [ Note that ble.sh adds overhead by itself although the overhead of bash-preexec DEBUG handler would be removed by this integration, so I wouldn't say it will become faster in total compared to the case without ble.sh. ]

SuperSandro2000 commented 2 years ago

I meant by one-by-one that you might be able to identify which of these plugins in PROMPT_COMMAND causes the dominant delay.

I think most of the delay came from history -a; history -c; history -r.

Then, we actually don't need to modify the codes that use bash-preexec like wez/wezterm#1572 and ellie/atuin#267.

wezterm needed to be modified anyway since it always loads bash-preexec and vendors it.

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

wezterm needed to be modified anyway since it always loads bash-preexec and vendors it.

Hmm, didn't it work without the modification? In the above integration, I intended to make ble.sh work with existing bash-preexec.sh without modifications; the above integration doesn't include the code of bash-preexec but communicates with the existing code when it is loaded. If the integration doesn't work without wez/wezterm#1572, it means that bash-preexec bundled with wezterm is actually a different implementation from rcaloras/bash-preexec?

I have now checked bash-preexec embedded in wezterm. I haven't really checked by running wezterm, but I think it will properly work because the following conditions are met:

Edit: I now tried wezterm and wezterm.sh of https://github.com/wez/wezterm/commit/3cc26cc7b8cd6ec11f3c73b4cd5d047c9074a0c0 (before wez/wezterm#1572) and https://github.com/wez/wezterm/commit/78ea214a96da7e9e8c8e5f3539bb788902eaff53 (after wez/wezterm#1572). Both bash-preexec works fine though both wezterm integration seems to have some problems.

It is unrelated to the wezterm shell-integration, but I faced another problem with wezterm and ble.sh. Somehow ble.sh seems to fail to reset DECSTBM in wezterm and the scrolling region is restricted in the first two lines with a certain condition. This happens after bleopt prompt_status_line is cleared. Note that the problem does not arise in other terminals.

SuperSandro2000 commented 2 years ago

Could you test the latest version of ble.sh?

So far it seems to work but I think it would be easier if I keep the patches for atuin and wezterm to remove a whole bunch of fragile bash code. I could imagine that the removal functions break which would be a bit of a pain to debug.

Hmm, didn't it work without the modification?

I was referring that the patch is still required when I want to use the hooks without the preexec compatibility stuff.

It is unrelated to the wezterm shell-integration, but I faced another problem with wezterm and ble.sh. Somehow ble.sh seems to fail to reset DECSTBM in wezterm and the scrolling region is restricted in the first two lines with a certain condition. This happens after bleopt prompt_status_line is cleared. Note that the problem does not arise in other terminals.

I must admit I wasn't using wezterm terminal in the last weeks but only the shell functions. I intent to use it again in the future especially because Windows Terminal breaks tmux panes and splits.

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

Could you test the latest version of ble.sh?

So far it seems to work but I think it would be easier if I keep the patches for atuin and wezterm to remove a whole bunch of fragile bash code. I could imagine that the removal functions break which would be a bit of a pain to debug.

Ah, I see your point. Then let's keep the special treatment in wezterm.sh. By the way, the special treatment in wezterm.sh only works when it is loaded after ble.sh. If wezterm.sh is loaded first and then ble.sh is loaded, the integration by ble.sh will be turned on.

Actually, what I have implemented in the integration is the switching between the DEBUG trap and the blehook in either direction. This is needed for bash-preexec to work even after ble.sh is detached by ble-detach (which is currently undocumented in the manual, but only found in ble --help). When ble.sh detaches, ble.sh lets bash-preexec reinstall the DEBUG trap. But, considering that it is rare to detach from ble.sh, maybe it is fair to completely remove bash-preexec implementations.

It is unrelated to the wezterm shell-integration, but I faced another problem with wezterm and ble.sh. Somehow ble.sh seems to fail to reset DECSTBM in wezterm and the scrolling region is restricted in the first two lines with a certain condition. This happens after bleopt prompt_status_line is cleared. Note that the problem does not arise in other terminals.

I must admit I wasn't using wezterm terminal in the last weeks but only the shell functions. I intent to use it again in the future especially because Windows Terminal breaks tmux panes and splits.

I have fixed the issue of DECSTBM in 4b1601d.

Digression: Some detailed story of DECSTBM This above problem is related to the supported terminal sequence for clearing `DECSTBM`. The DECSTBM escape sequence has the form `\e[...r`. However, the escape sequence terminated by `r` is designated as the sequences for *private use* by ANSI X3.64 and ECMA-48 so heavily conflicting with other escape sequences defined by terminal vendors and terminal emulators. Currently, most other escape sequences are not used anymore, but there is one escape sequence conflicting with DECSTBM, i.e., SCORC `\e[r` which is used by consoles and terminal emulators in SCO OpenServer. Some terminals distinguish these two different escape sequences by the number of arguments, so that `\e[;r` is clearing DECSTBM and `\e[r` is performing SCORC. Some other terminals only support DECSTBM and thus accept both forms `\e[r` and `\e[;r` as clearing DECSTBM. `kitty` and `wezterm` somehow only accepts `\e[r`, which means that they only support DECSTBM and, in addition, they fail to ignore extra CSI parameters. So far I have recognized `kitty` for this behavior, but now I realized that `wezterm` also behaves in a similar way. I have newly implemented the test for the terminal to check which form of the escape sequence the terminal supports for clearing DECSTBM.

I recognize another layout issue with wezterm.sh shell-integration (even without bash-preexec). Some extra empty lines are inserted between the prompts. I'll later work on the problem.

*Edit: This was easier than I though. I fixed it in e199bee. In order to use it with wezterm.sh shell-integration, one needs to put the following setting:

# blerc
bleopt prompt_command_changes_layout=1
SuperSandro2000 commented 2 years ago

When ble.sh detaches, ble.sh lets bash-preexec reinstall the DEBUG trap. But, considering that it is rare to detach from ble.sh

I need to do it from time to time because nix-shell is still not working like it should. I will write you another comment into the other thread.

akinomyoga commented 2 years ago

OK, thank you for the information! Please feel free to open a thread.

refparo commented 5 months ago

Hello. On the problem with PATH, is it possible for blesh to use a different PATH to calculate the completions? I still want explorer.exe and other programs from Windows to be accessible from WSL.

akinomyoga commented 2 weeks ago

@refparo @mgastonportillo @heathprovost I've been believing that the issue of the slow filesystem should be fixed in the upstream WSL2 system, but it doesn't seem to be fixed there. I decided to accept a workaround contributed by @musou1500. Now, in the master branch, when the completion is performed in WSL2 with PATH containing /mnt/*, ble.sh generates the command names in a background process so that the completion doesn't block the foreground shell. This should significantly improve the situation of the slow auto-complete in WSL2 (though there might still be places affected by the slow filesystem apart from the completion).

refparo commented 2 weeks ago

Thank you a lot! But actually, I believe that even on native Linux, if the PATH contains a FUSE-based filesystem, there would likely be a performance issue as well. It would be even better if a customizable option is added.