Terminal: Support resetting the colors via OSC 104, 110, 111...
Description of the new feature/enhancement
These are the counterparts of OSC 4, 10, 11 to reset the default color. (And continue the line with 117, 119 if 17, 19 get implemented, etc.)
Proposed technical implementation details (optional)
In VTE + GNOME Terminal we figured out the best is if the OSC 4, 10, 11 sequences have precedence over the UI / config file settings. That is, for each color slot, if its value is defined via OSC 4, 10, 11 then that one is used and the one in the settings is ignored. If a value hasn't been defined via OSC 4, 10, 11, or has been reset via OSC 104, 110, 111 then the value specified in the terminal emulator's settings is used. This way re-applying the same settings is an idempotent operation. (Previously the two sources were fighting with each other, both overwriting the value in the same slot. That way re-applying the user config (e.g. "altering" a color to the same value) would invalidate a previous OSC, which was bad.)
egmontkob
All 3 comments
I've just bounced off this. I'm using a script with OSC 10 and 11 to switch from Solarized Dark to Solarized Light in Administrator PowerShell sessions. However, editing my config then causes all such sessions to have their colours reset, except for a bunch of stuff that seems to keep the colour scheme from the time it was written (under PowerShell, I guess this is PS-Readline at work).
I'm particularly interested in the config layering behaviour, but without OSC 104/110/111, being unable to apply config changes is probably a UX regression.
Are there any particular concerns with the proposed behaviour, e.g. standarisation/commonality? Or is it just a case of implementing the relevant code in this repo?
Or (based on the milestone being a Windows release) does it actually require MS-internal work first to support resetting the colours?
TBBle
on 28 Jul 2020
Just speaking for myself, this is quite low down my priority list, because I think it's going to be a bit of a pain. It needs to be implemented twice, because the color palette is one of those things that has to be handled separately by conhost and Windows Terminal. And on the conhost side there really isn't a concept of "default palette" to reset to, because the initial colors can come from a variety of sources (e.g. shortcut links and registry entries), and the source can change at run time.
I also have plans to refactor some of the palette management code, and I'm not keen to add any more palette functionality until that refactoring is out of the way. Not that the refactoring is necessarily a prerequisite for this feature, but I'd personally prefer to get that cleaned up first.
So basically it seems like a lot of work for a fairly obscure feature, and one which I suspect few people will care about. But that's just my point of view. It's possible someone else may consider this more of a priority and decide to take it on sooner.
j4james
on 28 Jul 2020
Makes sense. It's not in any way a blocker for me, so I'm happy to wait for any planned refactoring to land (and perhaps #942), before I start trying to pick-off low hanging fruit.
TBBle
on 28 Jul 2020
Related issues
privacyguy123
·
131Comments
NOFUNEVER
·
106Comments
pingzing
·
212Comments
Ronkiro
·
65Comments
DHowett-MSFT
·
72Comments
Most helpful comment
Just speaking for myself, this is quite low down my priority list, because I think it's going to be a bit of a pain. It needs to be implemented twice, because the color palette is one of those things that has to be handled separately by conhost and Windows Terminal. And on the conhost side there really isn't a concept of "default palette" to reset to, because the initial colors can come from a variety of sources (e.g. shortcut links and registry entries), and the source can change at run time.
I also have plans to refactor some of the palette management code, and I'm not keen to add any more palette functionality until that refactoring is out of the way. Not that the refactoring is necessarily a prerequisite for this feature, but I'd personally prefer to get that cleaned up first.
So basically it seems like a lot of work for a fairly obscure feature, and one which I suspect few people will care about. But that's just my point of view. It's possible someone else may consider this more of a priority and decide to take it on sooner.