Re: [docs] [PATCH 02/10] docs: copy only the command from a console block

["Antonin Godard" <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>]

Hi,

On Tue Sep 22, 2026 at 4:40 PM CEST, Trevor Woerner via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
[...]
>> > diff --git a/documentation/sphinx-static/theme_overrides.css b/documentation/sphinx-static/theme_overrides.css
>> > index f9e067239b8e..1a439e9faf69 100644
>> > --- a/documentation/sphinx-static/theme_overrides.css
>> > +++ b/documentation/sphinx-static/theme_overrides.css
>> > @@ -107,6 +107,15 @@ section#welcome-to-the-yocto-project-documentation p.caption {
>> >     display: none;
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > +/* Sphinx already excludes the prompt from a selection; do the same for the
>> > +   output, so selecting a session block gives what the copy button gives */
>> > +.highlight span.go {
>> > +    user-select: none;
>> > +    -webkit-user-select: none;
>> > +    -moz-user-select: none;
>> > +    -ms-user-select: none;
>> > +}
>> 
>> This only works if the code-block uses the "console" lexer, though. Maybe say
>> that in the comment.
>> 
>> But I think we don't want that. Copying outputs might be useful in some cases.
>> And I trust the reader to be conscious enough to only select the command, not
>> the output of the command (it's still nice not having the prompt selectable
>> though).
>> 
>> I know this doesn't reflect 100% what the copy-button does but at least there's
>> still the option to copy the output.
>
> My preference would be that when the user copies, they only get the
> command; my guess is that's what they need, because they want to try the
> commands themselves. The output is something they might look at, but not
> necessarily copy.
>
> But I can see a case where they might want the output too. So I'm okay
> with changing the behaviour if that's what you'd prefer: it is one
> setting and one CSS rule, and both methods would then give the command
> plus its output, with the prompt stripped in each case.
>
> I have a much stronger opinion that the copybutton and mouse-selection
> should work the same, regardless of which way we decide they should work.
> First off, I don't think readers are going to really notice there are two
> ways to copy. But if they do notice, I think they would be surprised to
> find they worked differently.

I really think having two different ways of copying is a non-issue here... So
I'll stick with my first suggestion which is to let the user copy the output if
they want to, but have the copy button copy the command only.

Antonin