Quick open shouldn't jump to item until you type a character

[njx]

1. Open a JS file
2. Cmd-T

Result: The editor immediately scrolls to the first definition in the file. I would expect it to wait until I've either typed a character or selected an item in the list.

I think it's always worked this way, but it just occurred to me that it's been bugging me all this time :)

[peterflynn]

I thought we were modeling it after some other editor that behaves this way, but I just tried in Sublime and it definitely doesn't do that. And it certainly seems very unlikely that arbitrarily jumping to the alphabetically first function would ever be useful...

[njx]

Another thing that's always weirded me out: I don't really like the fact that it scrolls on hovering an item. Doesn't seem useful to me, and it makes the behavior on open weird (because if your mouse happens to be over the area where the menu opens, and then you move it a little, the editor jumps around).

[peterflynn]

I don't mind that one so much, personally... but again I can't find precedent for it elsewhere.

Might want to file it separately though -- it could be trickier to fix, because I think Smart Autocomplete doesn't distinguish between highlighting via rollover vs. highlighting via arrow keys.

[alfredxing]

I was digging around QuickOpen.js and found this bit of code:

typeAhead: false,   // won't work right now because smart auto complete 
                    // using internal raw results instead of filtered results for matching

Do you think that has anything to do with the issue?

[peterflynn]

No, it's caused by _handleItemFocus() getting called right away. Actually I wonder if commenting out the call in _handleShowResults() would be enough to fix this...

[alfredxing]

That would work. Is there anything else that relies on that call?

[njx]

Reviewed. To me, low priority.

[njx]

Low pri, but nominating for 1.0 because this weird behavior has always seemed wrong, and should be easy to fix.

[peterflynn]

@njx I thought you tried out a simple fix for this a while back and it turned out to be more complicated than initial appearances?

This might be another one to put in the 'migrate away from smart-autocomplete' piggy bank...

[njx]

I don't remember what the issue was, but I'm guessing we can fix it with your new version if it's not already fixed...

[peterflynn]

Reviewed - not critical for 1.0, though we expect a fix to land anyway

[peterflynn]

Fixed in 1.3

[rroshan1]

Verified the fix.. The issue no longer exists!!
Closing the issue.