mirror of
https://github.com/Ark0N/Codeman.git
synced 2026-09-30 12:39:42 +02:00
Michael GrundbergandClaude Opus 5
3edf9aae2f
A visible-frame capture repaints each row at an absolute position, counting up to the pane's height. A terminal shorter than that clamps every address past its own height onto its last line. The overflow rows then overwrite one another, and the rows underneath are lost. Replaying a real 50-row capture into a 30-row terminal rendered 28 lines of a 45-line command and drew the frame twice. Nothing in the response said what height the frame was built for, so the client could not detect this. A capture now reports the geometry it was really taken at through `capturedGeometry` on `PaneCaptureOptions`, and the terminal response carries it as `captureCols` and `captureRows`. When the captured pane is taller than the terminal, or the size that produced the capture did not survive the load, `selectSession` replays once at the size that stuck. `resizeRetry` caps that at one attempt, so two competing fits cannot trade replays forever. The retry re-arms the full-history flag only when the pass that ran had consumed it. A tab switch takes the bounded tail, so its retry takes the tail too: clearing the flag unconditionally would upgrade that switch into a fresh scrollback capture the user never asked for, which the route's own comments put at tens of megabytes. What this repairs is a capture that won a race against the resize meant to precede it. It does not repair a capture whose pane was too tall because `Session.resize` declined the resize outright, which it does for a small viewport while a desktop viewport's size claim is live. The retry re-sends the same declined resize and captures the same pane, and `resizeRetry` then stops it. Repairing that means changing who owns the pane size, which is a policy question this does not touch. The reported geometry still helps there, because the client can see the mismatch at all rather than being blind to it. Follows #395, #396 and #397, which fixed the other ways the replayed frame and the terminal could disagree. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>