[GH-ISSUE #194] terminal control artifacts w/ ptpython (prompt_toolkit?) #757

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-15 10:11:34 +03:00 by kerem · 3 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-15 10:11:34 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @yarko on GitHub (Feb 22, 2017).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/asciinema/asciinema/issues/194

recording vs playback when using ptpython as a repl being recorded works pretty well (even as the file size is large) --- but for newlines after a repl command is evaluated: there are terminal control artifacts.

the playback pattern emitted (which is not part of the recording) is, for example, of the form:

^[[{n};1R

where {n} is some variable number (I've seen, briefly, {18..22}).

As a sanity check, it seems to work ok with bpython.

asciinema pip installed version 1.3.0, under python 3.6.0 on ubuntu 16.04

Originally created by @yarko on GitHub (Feb 22, 2017). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/asciinema/asciinema/issues/194 recording vs playback when using `ptpython` as a repl being recorded works pretty well (even as the file size is large) --- but for newlines after a repl command is evaluated: there are terminal control artifacts. the playback pattern emitted (which is not part of the recording) is, for example, of the form: ^[[{n};1R where {n} is some variable number (I've seen, briefly, {18..22}). As a sanity check, it seems to work ok with `bpython`. asciinema pip installed version 1.3.0, under python 3.6.0 on ubuntu 16.04

kerem closed this issue

2026-03-15 10:11:39 +03:00

kerem commented

2026-03-15 10:11:45 +03:00

Author

Owner

@ku1ik commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2017):

I think this may be related to #108.

@ku1ik commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2017): I think this may be related to #108.

kerem commented

2026-03-15 10:11:50 +03:00

Author

Owner

@tiagocoutinho commented on GitHub (Feb 23, 2017):

I pretty sure it is the same as #192. Although #192 might be related to #108.

@tiagocoutinho commented on GitHub (Feb 23, 2017): I pretty sure it is the same as #192. Although #192 might be related to #108.

kerem commented

2026-03-15 10:11:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

@cassdeckard commented on GitHub (Mar 24, 2017):

This is definitely a duplicate of #192 which is itself a duplicate of #108. I suggest closing this issue and #192 and focusing on #108.

@cassdeckard commented on GitHub (Mar 24, 2017): This is definitely a duplicate of #192 which is itself a duplicate of #108. I suggest closing this issue and #192 and focusing on #108.