Add script to enable users to test symbol rendering on their terminals

[prah23]

This PR has 2 commits that do the following:

• Create a tool to be shipped with ZT that allows users to test symbol rendering on their respective terminal emulators. In the current iteration, the command to run the script is zulip-term-check-symbols. This script has been placed in a new folder called scripts/.
• FAQ.md has been updated to point users/contributors to the same, to help increase awareness on possible symbol rendering issues.

Tested on Windows Terminal and GNOME Terminal on Ubuntu, the layout is maintained in both.

Screenshots: As observed on Windows Terminal:

[Ezio-Sarthak]

This looks great in production 👍

While we aim to check for symbol support, we'd likely want the UI to be simpler, so as to not cause any other rendering issues :)

Leaving some comments inline :)

[zee-bit]

This is good. 👍

And, although the code is much simpler and rendering fine, we do get a very wide box(at least on my terminal). The names and their corresponding symbols are also very far apart, and my comment below may help reduce the distance?

Apart from that, it's nice work. :)

[prah23]

@zeebit
With the align left and right hack, with a dividechars of 10, it might look misaligned to the user. I've not included the hack for now and just left it center aligned, which seems to provide consistent alignment in most cases.

[prah23]

@zulipbot add "PR needs review"

[neiljp]

@prah23 I'm not sure we need to linger on this PR too long, but the spaced-out layout makes it tricky to determine which element aligns with each text description. I think you may be able to get a more compact form of this by explicitly looking for the maximum lengths of each column (or at least the names) and specifying the width. You may be able to just use one column pair rather than one per row? Also given the Padding seems challenging to get right, perhaps cheat a little and put the linebox with fixed width in 3 columns?

Re the FAQ text, I think we need to simplify and maybe just say 'symbols' in place of non-ASCII. The previous problem should be long-gone (0.3.0 is some time/versions ago), and we should be resolving the problem listed by setting the encoding in ZT in any case. So maybe just mostly replace that paragraph? @zee-bit Did you have any issues with characters?

[prah23]

@neiljp
I've updated the layout. I've used explicit widths to pack the layout together to make it look more compact and concise. I've used a Padding and have given the widgets inside it just a little over the exact number of characters they need. I've also added comments in the code as to how I've used the widths, in case we add symbols in the future (with longer names) and might need to update the script.

I've tested this on Windows Terminal (updated the description of the PR with the latest screenshot) and the GNOME Terminal, the display renders the same way and does not break on varying the terminal window's layout.

@zulipbot add "PR needs review"
@zulipbot remove "PR awaiting update"

[neiljp]

@prah23 To clarify my previous review, while this is expected to be a less-used script I'd prefer that we don't hard-code the widths but calculate them - we don't update the symbols very often, but it just takes one long name and the table goes awry from wrapping.

The FAQ entry reads fine, but the user needs a way to validate what the script should produce - eg. v1 maybe suggest taking a screenshot and asking on czo if there are problems, or v2 have a trimmed-down screenshot of the script as it stands in the FAQ itself? (v3 ideally itself generated for when we update it and doing diffs in CI?)

[prah23]

@neiljp
I've updated the script to check for the maximum symbol name length and structure the layout accordingly, I've set the widths relative to this maximum length.

For the FAQ update, I've mentioned up to the suggested v2, I've shared a screenshot of the tool (taken on the GNOME Terminal) that the users can compare with and then let us know here or on CZO.

[prah23]

@zulipbot remove "PR awaiting update"
@zulipbot add "PR needs review"

[neiljp]

@prah23 I just merged with a few minor textual changes - add that ctrl c == ^C, and some minor commit text tweaks 🎉

[zulipbot]

Heads up @prah23, we just merged some commits that conflict with the changes your made in this pull request! You can review this repository's recent commits to see where the conflicts occur. Please rebase your feature branch against the upstream/main branch and resolve your pull request's merge conflicts accordingly.