Supporting shell completions (spec)

[aDotInTheVoid]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Ex. I'm always frustrated when autocomplete doesnt work.

Eg:

• touch TAB doesnt work
• ~/pre TAB doesnt work (should expand to ~/prefix
• ninja ins TAB completes to ninja install_manifest.txt, not ninja install
• cd rustd TAB completes to cd rustdoc/, not cd rustdoc, where I can then specify I wanted to go to rustdoc-json, (in rustc src/test dir
• man cla TAB doesn't comlete (zsh shows clang clang++ clang++-12 clang-12 classes.conf)

Describe the solution you'd like

I'd like to be able to deligate to the underlying shell to provide autocompletion.

[zachlloyd]

Makes sense as a request.

Our current approach is to try move this logic into Warp by building out our own completion grammar and library, with the rationale being:

1. Shell autocomplete is pretty hard to configure
2. You lose most of your completions when you go to remote boxes unless you've also configured completions on them
3. The current shell completion specs are (in our opinion) pretty hard to write new completions for

That said, we are missing a bunch of context right now from the shell which is making our completions worse than they should be. And we just have a number of bugs. I think we will see how far we can get without delegating to the shell, and add that as a fallback if we can't make it great.

Thanks for the report.

[diktomat]

Points 1 and 3 just aren't true for fish, writing new completions is pretty straightforward. And 2 is easily solved by syncing one's config, which is often already set up.

Rationale for the opposite however: Completion for programs is often shipped with the program for major shells, but probably won't catch up for a Warp until it has a laaaarge userbase.

In my book, this is exactly what #2: Keep the power, but fix the UI. means. Why reimplement or worse cut (in case of missing completions) the power here instead of relying on the shell and just fixing the UI?

Btw, is there already a way for the user to add completions to Warp?

[rocketraman]

In addition, many if not most commands in Linux come with completions out of the box. I rarely configure my own completions, and yet my experience on Linux with completions on my usual terminal and shell (Yakuake and fish) is far better than my experience with completions on Warp. This contradicts all 3 of the points made by @zachlloyd .

[DavidSouther]

I'm seeing this today with Bazel & Kubernetes, both of which use compinit in zsh.

[aDotInTheVoid]

Maybe a hybrid aproach works best, where if you know about a tool (npm, etc) you provide native support, but if not, you can delegate to the underlying shell (ninja, r2, rg etc).

Some of the more basic stuff (starting with ~ or /, completing touch) should definatly be fixed in your layer

[ToontjeM]

Shall-defined functions should also be included in the auto-completion. If i say
myfunction () { bla bla }

The myfunction should be available in auto-complete. Just like normal zsh.

[zachlloyd]

Yup, we will explore that. We actually started with an approach of delegating the shell, but it did introduce extra latency. As a fallback though it might be acceptable. Appreciate the feedback.

[simjnd]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Ex. I'm always frustrated when autocomplete doesnt work.

Eg:

• touch TAB doesnt work
• ~/pre TAB doesnt work (should expand to ~/prefix
• ninja ins TAB completes to ninja install_manifest.txt, not ninja install
• cd rustd TAB completes to cd rustdoc/, not cd rustdoc, where I can then specify I wanted to go to rustdoc-json, (in rustc src/test dir
• man cla TAB doesn't comlete (zsh shows clang clang++ clang++-12 clang-12 classes.conf)

Describe the solution you'd like

I'd like to be able to deligate to the underlying shell to provide autocompletion.

Completion using variables is also broken, e.g. ls $HOME/Dow expands the variable and autocompletes to ls /Users/simjnd/Downloads but it doesn't work in Warp

[jklein24]

Throwing my +1 into the mix on this that the autocomplete issues definitely hinder my ability to use Warp as a primary driver right now. I also source an open source git_completion.sh script to get autocomplete for git branches and commands, but that doesn't seem to work with warp either. Would definitely like a fallback to native autocompletion when warp has no suggestions.

[maximkrouk]

I think the lack of make autocompletion is related too.
Otherwise I may open another feature-request to support make 🙂

[davecombs]

While it's a beta (and pretty impressive so far - I find very little of what it actually does that I don't like a lot!), not having some sort of command completion at least for filenames working is really going to make things difficult to continue. Maybe my setup (bash) is interfering, but even just '. ~/.bash_al' doesn't do anything - no list of files, no default pick, nothing. I have no choice but to retype in the file name completely. Anybody reported anything in bash that might interfere with what you're building (so I could at least get the minimal file completion?)

[nesl247]

I definitely think that the shell needs to take precedence here over any autocompletion by the terminal. I have my shell configured exactly how I want it to be, with the autocomplete that I want it to have. Regardless of if I'm using Warp, iTerm2, Terminal.app, or any other terminal, I don't want to have a difference experience. The terminal should enhance the shell, not replace it.

[ned-si]

I definitely think that the shell needs to take precedence here over any autocompletion by the terminal. I have my shell configured exactly how I want it to be, with the autocomplete that I want it to have.

+1 for this!

Having default autocompletion included in the terminal is fine, but I think that users must have the ability to customize it exactly the way they want is very important.

Being able to simply use what was already made at the shell level would be best, but another acceptable possibility, imo, would be to be able to customize it with a config file for Warp.

As someone else mentioned already, this is the single thing that prevents me to daily test Warp.

[dannysteenman]

Same here! This is preventing me from switching to warp from iterm

[ToontjeM]

+1 So far I like Warp a lot, but configurable completions is a must have.

[arunkumar413]

I think a JOSN like command structure would be of great help. More info here: #585

[elviskahoro]

From @arunkumar413

Hi Team,

Most of the Linux commands don't have a common structure. Each command has its own options and flags. I recommend a JSON like structure for the commands and their options.

For example:

{
    commandName: "ls",
    options: {
      all: true,
      author: true,
      humanReadable: true,
      recursive: true
    }
  }

This JSON like structure should be parsed into the regular Linux commands and executed. We'll have a terminal feature like text editor that takes JSON input, interprets the JSON like structure into regular commands and outputs the result.

This feature would make the documentation, linting, code completion easier. Each command option would be self explanatory and easier to understand.

Note: This wont be a complete replace of the existing command line but just an addition to the existing command line which takes a JSON structure as a command.

[neelmehta247]

Had a ticket related to this discussion here: #622.

I was having issues using commands like kubectl and skaffold where the tab autocompletion would simply do nothing (presumably because there wasn't a file in my working dir with the same prefix). I think in cases where the command is unsupported, delegating to shell is a good way to go, even if it adds latency.

For kubectl for instance, the shell completion fetches suggestions from the k8s API I believe to give autocompletions that wouldn't be found on machine. I can see how this would be tricky to build a custom solution for in Warp so falling back to shell could be a good stopgap.

[elviskahoro]

From ChrisVarenChris via Discord: https://discord.com/channels/851854972600451112/852251449068486773/900932342653255700

i assume a shell's native completion system is just incompatible, so you need to write new ones for Warp? At the moment, this 100% what's stopping me from using Warp for the majority of work. A crowd sourced repository of open source completions wouldn't solve it since we have completions for internal tools that are used all the time. Though most of these completions are autogenerated from getopt-style help texts so just the ability to have custom user completions would be enough. (I believe fish shell auto-magically generates completions in a similar way)

[jesus-villalba]

It doesn't autocomplete functions defined .zshrc, e.g.
function rstoserver { rsync $1 user@server.com:$2 }.
Is there a work around?

[elviskahoro]

From blitz2145 via Discord: https://discord.com/channels/851854972600451112/906269689116770304/908912605232529418

Perhaps this one is out of scope for the warp terminal in the short term, but the UI could build on a shell that supported this theoretical completions protocol. How about something like the LSP (Language Server Protocol) but for autocompletions, perhaps cli programs themselves could be invoked to output completions for their own commands, rather than having to build stuff like fig (which is nice, but cli programs themselves should take on the responsibility for completions), etc. The Oil shell actually has a great design/architecture for how to do this, https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Shellac-Protocol-Proposal

[wastez]

Same here, i also would like to use warp but as long as autocompletion scripts aren't working i can't use it.
And every linux professional will have the same problem with it.
Sorry but the AI bullshit which is in best case a gimmick for me isn't as important then this.

[ayalon]

For me Warp is not usable it paths are not autocompleted.

[franciscocpg]

I started to use warp yesterday and was an amazing experience until I started to have issues with autocomplete and now I found this thread. For me, it's useless to use a terminal without the autocomplete integrated :(

[harveysanders]

I don't mean this to be spammy, but just in case folks are unaware, ghostty has most of the traditional features like autocomplete. It does not have all the AI stuff like Warp, but I'm guessing most of you don't care. I've been using it for a few weeks and it fits the bill.

[speedenator]

TBH unclear what the benefit is over iTerm2 at that point (at least for us MacOS users).

[harveysanders]

For me, Ghostty seems a bit faster, but YMMV on that one. The "Quick Terminal" is great, but I guess iTerm has that too?
The terminal inspection is very cool in Ghostty, but there is no reason to switch for that unless you're building shells, TUIs or something.

[Integralist]

I moved to ghostty as I wanted to use my own Zsh auto-complete scripts rather than Warps.

But saying ghostty "has most of the traditional features like autocomplete" is probably a bit misleading in the sense that Warp provides that feature working out of the box and it makes life a lot easier for people who want autocomplete as configuring it yourself (as you have to do for ghostty and other terminals) is non-trivial and hard to get right without necessarily installing a bunch of large shell framework tools.

[harveysanders]

that's fair. I don't have ton of extra frameworks and config, but I often forget I have any at all, so fair point.
That reminds me of this post about "modern terminal setups" from Julia Evans:

My immediate reaction was “oh, getting a modern terminal experience isn’t that hard, you just need to….”, but the more I thought about it, the longer the “you just need to…” list got, and I kept thinking about more and more caveats.

https://jvns.ca/blog/2025/01/11/getting-a-modern-terminal-setup/

[speedenator]

Nowadays, I think a term + shell is akin to a woodworking bench. It's there for people who tend to know what they're doing and everyone customizes it for what they need. I think part of the learning curve in customizing a .*rc file is needed, and various discussions / arguments about how to make a prompt / what plug-in loader to use are helpful for people learning. If $ is good enough as somebody is just following some instructions from the Web, no need for anything fancy on the terminal.

Also: get off my lawn. ;)

[yureutaejin]

Actually, I think Iterm2 + Amazon Q is better then this

[amnesia0287]

I'm a bit baffled that native completions are simply blocked, as you can change the keyboard commands to use warp completions to something like ctrl + space, and then instead of doing native completions... it just adds a tab to your command line. Outside of vim/nano when would anyone ever want to add a literal tab to completions?

I think the warp completions are useful, but just... WHAT?

[emilews]

So it's been 3 almost 4 years and nothing on this yet.
Couldn't they use Warp with the AI stuff and make the development faster?

[speedenator]

I sent them some feedback and one of their SAs got back to me (thanks Danny!). Short version: team knows and it's work in progress.

That said, at it's been... um... years... and IMHO it's likely some overt clobbering they've done to suppress auto completion, don't think it's gonna happen. shrug

FWIW, I think the core issue here is that the Warp product is split-brained... there's a lot of nice features for people who know their way around a shell, but it's currently aimed more at novices. All the AI stuff, pain getting our prompts working, and so forth are proof of that. I suggested to them they may want to consider a more power-user centric offering, esp as some of the team stuff may fit nicely for a power users group. TBH, I think most people who need terminals end up quickly in the power-users bucket anyway ;).

Anyway, back to iterm2 for me.... sometimes, grass ain't greener. :)

[bartekpacia]

@speedenator Well put, and I agree. For those who know their shell-fu well, Warp is just more hassle. It hijacks responsibilities of the shell to make their fancy features work.

Not saying it's good/bad. Interesting product, and I wish them the best. But probably not for me.

[wastez]

I also know that other terminal developers doesn't have the problem to look into this because this is all integrated in bash or zsh. Sorry but i don't see any benefit to use ghostty, it is just another default shell and other then in iterm there is no configuration gui.

I like how warp will work, it's really a total new experience which makes working better, but everything need to be integrated what a default bash can do and this is a lot of work......

And it professionals like me will almost need every feature which a shell like bash can do, until this wan't happen its uninteresting.

[plastikfan]

Actually, the beauty of not having a gui for the settings ui is that it's both scalable-able and scriptable meaning that it is easily reproducible on another host machine. Not having a gui is a plus.

I guess some people like guis some don't which is fair enough. I like being able to easily reproduce the same setup on other machines using automated means so no gui is my preference.

[wastez]

Actually, the beauty of not having a gui for the settings ui is that it's both scalable-able and scriptable meaning that it is easily reproducible on another host machine. Not having a gui is a plus.

I guess some people like guis some don't which is fair enough. I like being able to easily reproduce the same setup on other machines using automated means so no gui is my preference.

Yes in the most things i aggree, i also don't like a gui in the most things but in such a simple thing then a terminal i don't see a benefit. I had a short look in ghostty but i was to busy to have a look into the extended configuration.

[speedenator]

You can have both. For example iterm lets you save and load profiles and has for some time now:Dynamic Profiles - Documentation - iTerm2 - macOS Terminal Replacementiterm2.com-eOn Feb 17, 2025, at 5:58 AM, wastez ***@***.***> wrote: Actually, the beauty of not having a gui for the settings ui is that it's both scalable-able and scriptable meaning that it is easily reproducible on another host machine. Not having a gui is a plus. I guess some people like guis some don't which is fair enough. I like being able to easily reproduce the same setup on other machines using automated means so no gui is my preference. Yes in the most things i aggree, i also don't like a gui in the most things but in such a simple thing then a terminal i don't see a benefit. I had a short look in ghostty but i was to bussy to have a look into the extanded configuration. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[plastikfan]

Problem with having a gui for the settings is that when the number of options get large then so the gui becomes larger and unwieldy. That’s what I mean about scalability

…

________________________________ From: Erik Selberg ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:40:59 PM To: warpdotdev/Warp ***@***.***> Cc: Plastikfan ***@***.***>; Manual ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [warpdotdev/Warp] Supporting shell completions (spec) (Discussion #434) You can have both. For example iterm lets you save and load profiles and has for some time now:Dynamic Profiles - Documentation - iTerm2 - macOS Terminal Replacementiterm2.com-eOn Feb 17, 2025, at 5:58 AM, wastez ***@***.***> wrote: Actually, the beauty of not having a gui for the settings ui is that it's both scalable-able and scriptable meaning that it is easily reproducible on another host machine. Not having a gui is a plus. I guess some people like guis some don't which is fair enough. I like being able to easily reproduce the same setup on other machines using automated means so no gui is my preference. Yes in the most things i aggree, i also don't like a gui in the most things but in such a simple thing then a terminal i don't see a benefit. I had a short look in ghostty but i was to bussy to have a look into the extanded configuration. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#434 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AL32YOXKUIWGK6P2XE723ZD2QH7IXAVCNFSM5LRT5KV2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTOSENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCMRSGI3DGNRU>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mrabdolian]

+1 on this. I'm also facing the same issues already mentioned by the others. Even the custom completion I've created for my custom fish function won't work in Warp at all. It just suggests files/folders which are completely irrelevant! IMO, giving the user full control over this would be the best solution. For example, Warp can have a setting for this with options for: only using shell autocompletion, only using Warp autocompletion, or using both with the ability to specify the priority.

Unfortunately, I had to switch to another terminal app for now. It's really annoying to be deprived of some of the perfect fish capabilities.

I hope the development team prioritizes this long-awaited request.

[teddyknox]

+1

[MichaelYoo]

I was going to swap to warp, but this issue is a serious dealbreaker. Unfortunate, back to Hyper for me.

[somtooo]

So still nothing on this after 4 years. You cant just tell every other cli tool that you dont support to go fuck it self. at least have an option to turn off the warps completion so we can use shell completions or a way to submit cli tool completions to warp. How can you just be silent?. You keep adding all this ways to interact with AI but dont care about this crucial issue

[wastez]

So still nothing on this after 4 years. You cant just tell every other cli tool that you dont support to go fuck it self. at least have an option to turn off the warps completion so we can use shell completions or a way to submit cli tool completions to warp. How can you just be silent?. You keep adding all this ways to interact with AI but dont care about this crucial issue

Thats exact the point, AI can be implemented if everything else is working as it should, thats how i see it.
But AI is in the time now the super seller i think, so every software need to have it, regardless if it is needed.
Every IT professional will not use it if autocompletion will not work.

This shell has the potential to be the new standard for all, also for it professionals but for that this has to work.
I think you will sell more if this is working, i think you loose so much possible customers this way.
Because right now every it professional will download it and use it until he gets that this isn't working and thats it. (like me, at first i couldn't believe that this common thing isn't working)

So please have a look into this!!!

[gigapod]

+1 - Without shell completions, Warp, which otherwise looks great, is a not-starter.