Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released

Alan Kilborn

@donho said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

There’s no way to satisfy all the custom URI’s rule, so it has to be generic. Currently custom URI follows URL’s pattern. What you see the exception of your foo:// is not accepted in URL scheme as well. Feel free to create an issue on Github Notepad++ if you think it’s a bug (for URL).

I’m totally unsure what any of that means.
Can someone “translate” it for me? :-)
Meanwhile I will guess…

It would be my hope and expectation that if Notepad++ considers something like file://w:\testing\test as a link and underlines it (and opens the file in the associated application and the file when double-clicked – AND IT DOES!) it would also do it – the underlining, not the opening – for the same argument for a custom “protocol” such as my foo://w:\testing\test.

I can create an issue, but don’t want to waste effort if this is an unrealistic expectation. Thinking about it in light of what @donho said, maybe an issue I open should be a “counter-issue”, saying that Notepad++ should NOT underline/open file://w:\testing\test because backslashes in this are “not correct”?

I can still do what I want with the custom protocols, but (ugh!) it means I would have to convert every Windows path I would ever use from:

c:\myfolder\mysubfolder\myfile.txt

to

c:/myfolder/mysubfolder/myfile.txt

in order to get it ( foo://c:/myfolder/mysubfolder/myfile.txt ) to show in Notepad++ as a link.
I can make a macro to do that, but, again, ugh!, it means selecting a pathname and running the macro each time I need a pathname.

Side note: Chrome has no issue if I put file://c:\myfolder\mysubfolder\myfile.txt into its address box and press Enter.

But in the end, technically I don’t know if backslashes here are “spec” or not; I didn’t look it up, I just know which way I want it to work. :-)

ArkadiuszMichalski

@Alan-Kilborn
file:// is processed slightly differently than http(s) and customs schemes (with follow http rules) so that your example not works. This is how it was written by the author of the new URL parser (Uhf7). You can open an bug, if the changes are not big, it may take them into account (plus add new tests), who knows.

Bassically on Windows for all urls/paths we can use \ or / by mixing them and it works (browsers also correct such url to correct format - try load such adress and check how it looks like).

Alan Kilborn

@ArkadiuszMichalski said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

Bassically on Windows for all urls/paths we can use \ or / by mixing them and it works (browsers also correct such url to correct format - try load such adress and check how it looks like).

Sure. That’s when we are doing the sourcing. When something else is doing the sourcing (e.g. Notepad++), we typically always get \ – think of right-click-tab’s Full File Path to Clipboard.

For what I want to in this circumstance, it is a (minor) stopper. I’ll be elaborating on exactly what I’m doing soon in another thread. Key to what I’m doing is Notepad++ underlining-as-link the “right” thing for me, scripting can take it from there. I don’t want to have to reinvent the wheel and do my own “underlining”.

Michael Vincent

@Alan-Kilborn said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

When something else is doing the sourcing (e.g. Notepad++), we typically always get \ – think of right-click-tab’s Full File Path to Clipboard.

I think the file:// URI typically has another / to start with to indicate the root directory, fully qualified path. So from your examples, the actual URI should be:

file:///w:\testing\test.txt
file:///w:/testing/test.txt
...

Typically, we “ignore” the leading / on Windows since the driver letter C: in this example acts like the root directory in linux operating systems. But, if we consider the “extra” / mandatory, then the foo:// example works for me:

See the first one doesn’t work using just the foo:// leader, but adding the extra / in the second example to indicate a file-like URI, it works. I’ve only added foo:// (with only 2 /'s to my URI custom schemes:

Cheers.

Alan Kilborn

@Michael-Vincent said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

See the first one doesn’t work using just the foo:// leader, but adding the extra / in the second example to indicate a file-like URI, it works.

Ah, Michael to the rescue now. Thanks!
Typing that third / is way less of a burden than converting all of the \ in the following path. (Note: it was truly only necessary to convert the one immediately after the colon of the drive letter, but that mixing of slashes was just too wacky to propagate through a bunch of data files)

I’ve only added foo:// (with only 2 /'s to my URI custom schemes

Which raises another point: in the box in the Preferences, is it correct to do foo:// or foo: alone? Maybe I don’t need the // but I am so used to seeing it as part of file:// or http:// with Notepad++ links that I just assumed… I suppose it will become more apparent as the experimentation goes on.

If I’d have tried foo: without the // from the beginning, I wouldn’t have “whined”, because foo:w:\blah\blah.txt highlights as a link just fine! Drat!

Michael Vincent

@Alan-Kilborn said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

I wouldn’t have “whined”, because foo:w:\blah\blah.txt highlights as a link just fine! Drat!

Interesting. There are some URI’s that don’t use the // - I’m thinking mailto:user@domain.com so maybe foo: alone is fine for your use case. I think I pulled my extensive list from an issue or maybe the Notepad++ source code - I certainly didn’t type it all myself - that was cut and paste - from where, I can’t remember.

Cheers.

Alan Kilborn

@Michael-Vincent said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

I think I pulled my extensive list … I certainly didn’t type it all myself

Are you talking about then contents of the URI customized schemes you showed? :

That list?
If so, then no, you didn’t do it: With the exception of the foo:// at the end, that is all default text content for that box in 7.9.2 !

Michael Vincent

@Alan-Kilborn said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

that is all default text content for that box in 7.9.2 !

Oh… :-) that makes sense.

Ekopalypse

See https://community.notepad-plus-plus.org/topic/20563/notepad-v-7-9-2-ignores-print-line-number-preference

Does not happen with 7.9.1

Ekopalypse

Different behavior in 7.9.1 and 7.9.2

Start Npp and open function list panel - close npp.
Restart Npp and function list panel should open automatically.
So far so good
But when one selects Run->Open file in another instance then

in 7.9.1 it opens the file and the function list view
in 7.9.2 it opens only the file

Alexey Smirnov

V7.9.2 is TRASH! because notepad ++ still showed blank and empty space in bellow

FREEMIUM

PeterJones

@FREEMIUM said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

Fix this issue!

What issue? You showed two screenshots, without any description of the problem you are having.

To me, it looks like you have a .json file opened in Notepad++, and it seems to be highlighted as JSON. That’s working as designed.

FREEMIUM

@PeterJones

Look V7.9.1 and V7.9.2… in V7.9.2 showed empty space

Ekopalypse

@FREEMIUM

could it be that you are referring to the setting
Enable scrolling beyond last line ??

FREEMIUM

@Ekopalypse Thank you, yes it’s enabled and why is default this function enabled in v.7.9.2?

PeterJones

@FREEMIUM said in Notepad++ v7.9.2 Released:

@Ekopalypse Thank you, yes it’s enabled and why is default this function enabled in v.7.9.2?

It’s not. I just unzipped a fresh v7.9.2 portable, and that option defaulted to off:

Alan Kilborn

IMO, people like @FREEMIUM , in the way they posted here, deserve zero response. :-(

FREEMIUM

This post is deleted!

mkupper

@donho I would like to create a bug report on github but need advice on the best way to word it.

Like, @alan-kilborn, I have been using custom protocols. One of them is called np:// which runs Notepad++ on a file path. I have several hundred instances of np://c:\full\path\to\a\file on my system. I added np:// to my custom URI setting in npp and saw the same behavior that Alan reported.

I experimented and found one workaround which that URI with three slashes work. np:///w:\testing\test.txt is underlined and works. The custom URI field is still set to np://

As I’m seeing what I consider to be peculiar and inconsistent behavior with v7.9.2. I’d like to understand what’s happening, and ideally, why, before making a bug report.

I created a test file using:

md c:\full\path\to\a
>c:\full\path\to\a\file echo Test file

If I set my customized URI list to np: with no slashes then:

np:c:\full\path\to\a\file	works
np:/c:\full\path\to\a\file	works
np://c:\full\path\to\a\file	Not underlined!
np:///c:\full\path\to\a\file	works

If I set my customized URI list to np:/ with one slash then:

np:c:\full\path\to\a\file	Does not work as expected
np:/c:\full\path\to\a\file	works
np://c:\full\path\to\a\file	Not underlined!
np:///c:\full\path\to\a\file	works

If I set my customized URI list to np:// with two slashes then:

np:c:\full\path\to\a\file	Does not work as expected
np:/c:\full\path\to\a\file	Does not work as expected
np://c:\full\path\to\a\file	Not underlined!
np:///c:\full\path\to\a\file	works

Once I’m at np:///c:\full\path\to\a\file then it does not seem to matter how many additional slashes I add after the np:///. All forms work.

As np:/// works it will be an easier to use workaround than np://c:/full\path\to\a\file
I have been using np://c:\... to reference the paths to things such as .bat files. I double click to open the file in Notepad++. If I want to run the file from a command prompt the full path is already there after the np:/// and does not need to be modified.

My questions are:
Why is np:// with two slashes seeming to be a special case that breaks the new URL parser?

There seem to be two rather specific workarounds to using a custom URI with backslashes.
np:///c:\full\path\to\a\file triple slash after the custom protocol or
np://c:/full\path\to\a\file A forward slash after the second colon.
Something like np://c:\full/path/to/a/file does not work. The slash after the second colon needs to either be a forward slash or you can use np:/// triple slash.
What edge case(s) are we running into here?

Why is file://c:\full\path\to\a\file accepted by the new URL parser? It’s underlined and works. It seems that file:// has its own parser and not the new one.