Add in return for Abort on MultiSelectionPrompt

[BenjaminMichaelis]

Fixes #851

[BenjaminMichaelis]

@patriksvensson To follow up with my question on this issue, is this all you are looking for a return of the Result? Or also some handling of some sort?

[patriksvensson]

@BenjaminMichaelis

We call HandleInput from here: https://github.com/spectreconsole/spectre.console/blob/main/src/Spectre.Console/Prompts/List/ListPrompt.cs#L59

1. We would need to add a check here for the Abort result, and in that case, break.
2. We should probably add a new required boolean to the ListPrompt.Show method, and before aborting, check if we're allowed to, so we don't abort if the prompts are expected to produce some kind of result.

What do you think?

[BenjaminMichaelis]

I think that makes sense, Let me check that I fully understand what you mean by trying to implement it

[BenjaminMichaelis]

How does this look? @patriksvensson

[patriksvensson]

@BenjaminMichaelis I think it looks good! Would it be possible to add a test as well?

[patriksvensson]

The build problems should have been resolved now.
Could you rebase your PR branch against the main branch?

[BenjaminMichaelis]

Just rebased @patriksvensson, added in a small test, but as I am still getting used to this library, not positive if there are better things I should be testing for/or how to since this feels minor. I'm not positive how to get the ListPromptInputResult out from the test view since we return a state

[patriksvensson]

@BenjaminMichaelis Your test actually showed that there is a flaw in the design.
We always return the selected item(s) and in this case, we want to inform the caller that the operation was aborted.

@nils-a @phil-scott-78 Any suggestions on how we could solve this in an extendable way?

[BenjaminMichaelis]

Ahh, to make sure I am following, so the state index should still be 0 in fact like the test shows but in addition be letting the caller know that it didn't move because this was an aborted case?

[patriksvensson]

@BenjaminMichaelis Correct, but I think we need to discuss how this should be done. Would like some input from the other maintainers about this.

[patriksvensson]

@BenjaminMichaelis I'm sorry, but turns out there already is an active pull request for this item: #711

I'm sorry I didn't realize this before, I could have saved you from wasting your time 😞

[BenjaminMichaelis]

@BenjaminMichaelis I'm sorry, but turns out there already is an active pull request for this item: #711

I'm sorry I didn't realize this before, I could have saved you from wasting your time 😞

Aw bummer, I'll keep looking for more to do :)

[Kamakazi152]

@patriksvensson Am I looking at this right and seeing #711 was never finished? If so, could @BenjaminMichaelis submit his changes again? This feature is still not implemented, and it looks like Benjamin already got this figured out.