We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't have @joe-p on file. You can sign our CLA at https://zed.dev/cla. Once you've signed, post a comment here that says '@cla-bot check'.

@cla-bot check

The cla-bot has been summoned, and re-checked this pull request!

Apologies for the noise. Should have made the PR draft since the first commit was way over-engineered. Now that I understand the codebase a bit more ede008a is a pretty elegant solution.

Tomorrow I can add a unit test but let me know if you think any other tests would be required.

In e3985d6 I added a test for a scenario that wasn't initially covered, but that has been fixed in 95a1a86

Thanks for this, and sorry for the glacial review time.

The change looks good to me (I spent a bit of time trying to see if we can refactor the loop to make it more obvious why it's right, but couldn't get something obviously better :D).

Now to see if I can get CI to run.

All good! Yeah it's definitely not something that's immediately intuitive (as shown evident by my many attempts before force pushing).

Part of the initial confusion for me was simply the wording choice of pending over something a bit more descriptive like partial_stroke_match. This was exacerbated by match_keystrokes only returning Some for partial matches but NOT for full matches. I think verbiage along the lines of partial_keystroke_match and full_keystroke_match (and only_partially_matches_keystrokes()) would be a bit easier to make sense of, but that seems outside the scope of this PR.

Makes sense, thanks again!