Prompt buffer mark checkboxes

[aartaka]

Description

This adds a checkbox to every mark-able suggestion in prompt buffer. Looks like this right now:

Clicking on a checkbox scrolls the prompt one suggestion down (like it does with C-space/M-space marking), which is convenient. I've also restricted the area where clicks mark/return suggestions to the attribute values they list.

Note that I didn't apply the styling yet, because I was mainly working with the structure of the prompt in general. One particular thing that diverges from @lansingthomas' spec is the "Mark" column. I had to add it because otherwise prompt becomes much less structured and breaks table markup in general :P @lansingthomas, is the structure okay? Good to proceed with styling?

Fixes #3134

Discussion

Mention there any suspicious parts of the new code, or the ideas that you'd like to discuss in regards to this change.

Checklist:

Everything in this checklist is required for each PR. Please do not approve a PR that does not have all of these items.

• Git hygiene:
  • I have pulled from master before submitting this PR
  • There are no merge conflicts.
• I've added the new dependencies as:
  • ASDF dependencies,
  • Git submodules,

    cd /path/to/nyxt/checkout
    git submodule add https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/nyxt/py-configparser _build/py-configparser

  • and Guix dependencies.
• My code follows the style guidelines for Common Lisp code. See:
  • Norvig & Pitman's Tutorial on Good Lisp Programming Style (PDF)
  • Google Common Lisp Style Guide
• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• My code has been reviewed by at least one peer. (The peer review to approve a PR counts. The reviewer must download and test the code.)
• Documentation:
  • All my code has docstrings and :documentations written in the aforementioned style. (It's OK to skip the docstring for really trivial parts.)
  • I have updated the existing documentation to match my changes.
  • I have commented my code in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I have updated the changelog.lisp with my changes if it's anything user-facing (new features, important bug fix, compatibility breakage).
    • Changelog update should be a separate commit.
  • I have added a migration.lisp entry for all compatibility-breaking changes.
  • (If this changes something about the features showcased on Nyxt website) I have these changes described in the new/existing article at Nyxt website or will notify one of maintainters to do so.
• Compilation and tests:
  • My changes generate no new warnings.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works. (If possible.)
  • I ran the tests locally ((asdf:test-system :nyxt) and (asdf:test-system :nyxt/gi-gtk)) and they pass.

[lansingthomas]

Nice work,

:P @lansingthomas, is the structure okay? Good to proceed with styling?

Almost - lets try a few things first. See you tomorrow.

[jmercouris]

Result of meeting last week? What must we do?

[lansingthomas]

Result of meeting last week? What must we do?

It was decided that Artyom will make the extra column disappear 🫥 per the spec in #3134

[lansingthomas]

we talked through what other options might look like and they don't look great.

[aadcg]

What's the status on this one? @aartaka @lansingthomas

[aartaka]

What's the status on this one?

The last time we discussed it, @lansingthomas was unsure about checkboxes. But I can't recall the reason.

[lansingthomas]

@aartaka I am all good on checkboxes. Sorry for any confusion.

[aadcg]

This PR is manifestly not ready. See the bug below - the user is unable to unmark the top suggestion.

simplescreenrecorder-2023-10-23_10.23.53.mp4

---

Requesting peer reviews for unfinished or not self-reviewed work is to be avoided at all costs.

[jmercouris]

@aartaka OK for me to take over this one?

[aartaka]

@aartaka OK for me to take over this one?

Yes.

[aartaka]

aartaka OK for me to take over this one?

Yes.

[jmercouris]

I finally got Nyxt compiling against this branch. I rm'd NASDF from all subdirectories on my machine, and it started working. I can start working on this again.

[jmercouris]

I've not been able to solve the bug yet. I have been working on this, though.

[jmercouris]

It however doesn't happen only with the top checkbox. I have been able to get it to happen with other checkboxes.

[jmercouris]

@aadcg I believe I have fixed the bug. I have done some testing, and have simplified a lot of the logic. Please give it a try now.

[aadcg]

@jmercouris when requesting a review, please ensure that the branch is rebased over master. Do you see the pertinence of this request?

[jmercouris]

Sure, but I am not saying it is completely ready, I am just saying that I believe I fixed the bug :-D

I can rebase over master next time as well!

[jmercouris]

Well.. I see now that I /was/ requesting a review. But! I thought there was still work to be done, not sure if it is to be called "Mark" or whatever. I think there were some stylistic changes to make!

pr status changed in the mean time.

[aadcg]

@jmercouris, I see the misunderstanding! I'd suggest completing the PR, including all of the final details, and requesting a review at the very end when you feel it's ready to be merged. "Intermediary" reviews may be needed at times (though they should be avoided for the sake of efficiency), but perhaps not in this case.

[jmercouris]

I've tweaked the visual appearance closer to the specification:

What do you say @lansingthomas ?

[jmercouris]

Lastly, added a little bit of padding.

[jmercouris]

@aadcg R E A D Y!

[lansingthomas]

Looks great. Don't let styling get in your way at this point. We just need to help people intuit this whole modal experience.

[aadcg]

@jmercouris we'll discuss it on the call. Thanks.

[aadcg]

Thanks!

[jmercouris]

I am finally a merging magician!