SCM history: Show details on hover (fix #200378)

[gjsjohnmurray]

This PR fixes #200378

[gjsjohnmurray]

/assign @lszomoru

[gjsjohnmurray]

[lszomoru]

@gjsjohnmurray, thank you very much for the pull request. I was thinking that for each incoming/outgoing entry we would want to show a rich hover similar to the timeline entry. If you do not have bandwidth to update the PR, I am happy to take it from here.

[gjsjohnmurray]

I have pushed a change to make this display a Markdown-capable tooltip. I think the proposed API will probably need a tooltip? : MarkdownString property adding to SourceControlHistoryItem and wiring through to ISCMHistoryItem so the Git extension can pass a Git-appropriate tooltip.

[gjsjohnmurray]

I have added vscode.SourceControlHistoryItem.tooltip to the proposed API and used it from the Git extension.

[gjsjohnmurray]

[gjsjohnmurray]

Please can this be reviewed (and merged 🤞) soon. I really like the new incoming/outgoing feature but it's tedious to have to widen my side bar to see the full commit messages and the authors.

[gjsjohnmurray]

@lszomoru any chance this can be merged in time for February?

[lszomoru]

Sorry for not getting back to you on this until now. The "Timeline" proposed API is "UI driven" so it makes sense for it to have a property with which the extension describes how the hover should look. "The History Provider" API is model driven so I do not think that we should be making any changes to the existing API. We should just use the existing information (author, message, etc) to render a rich hover.

[gjsjohnmurray]

@lszomoru I think a history item "rich" hover will be impoverished if all it does is display untruncated the label and description properties of the item (which is what my original commit did, using a native tooltip). Please help me understand why you oppose allowing the extension that provides the item to also provide a markdown tooltip conveying whatever additional information the extension deems relevant.

[gjsjohnmurray]

@lszomoru can I do anything to progress this?

[gjsjohnmurray]

@lszomoru I guess this has been made obsolete by your #209373

[lszomoru]

Closing in favour of #209373.