I tried out this PR and while I see a "you've been logged in" popup in multiple windows, the other windows are still stuck on this screen and there is no attempt to re-connect to the workspace:

I imagine this dialogue should be dismissed and a connection re-attempted? The user experience of selecting cancel is pretty bad (closes the workspace and gives you an empty window). I did not try what happens if I select "login".

I tried out this PR and while I see a "you've been logged in" popup in multiple windows, the other windows are still stuck on this screen and there is no attempt to re-connect to the workspace

Can you provide a reproducible for this? I am not sure what's special about some windows that they do not respond to the change 🤔

Can you provide a reproducible for this? I am not sure what's special about some windows that they do not respond to the change 🤔

@EhabY Sure, I'll write down what I did.

Open two VS Code windows to the same workspace (different folders in the same workspace, whilst logged in):

coder open vscode my-workspace.dev /home/coder/foo

and

coder open vscode my-workspace.dev /home/coder/bar

Now you should have two windows that are both. Make sure VS Code is set to restore previous windows after quitting.

Then:

1. Quit VS Code
2. Delete~/Library/Application Support/Code/.../session (it's in globalStorage, not at the machine right now so I can't give you full path)
3. Open VS Code
4. Both windows should show the ^aforementioned dialogue
5. Perform log in on one of the windows
6. Notice the dialogue does not disappear on the second

Does this help?

Yes, thanks for the detailed reproducer! I can see the issue now: VS Code modals aren't dismissible without user action, which is by design (seemicrosoft/vscode#2732). I can adjust our flow so we don't close the window if the user signs in in the meantime (whether they clickcancel,login orx). The logs in the other window show that the sign-in succeeded, so the real problem is our fallback when a login completes after the modal appears.

Do keep in mind that we cannot change the content of the modal once it's shown, so we either go for something less intrusive or just handle the fallback correctly.

Using the status bar for messages which need to be updated / dismissed is suggested there as the recommended approach in the issue I mentioned. What do you think?

Oh, that's unfortunate, but understandable (that the modals can't be dismissed).

Using the status bar for messages which need to be updated / dismissed is suggested there as the recommended approach in the issue I mentioned. What do you think?

It's one option but I don't think it's a good one. It's fairly hidden for something that's required for your editor to start working.

I think updating the modal is the way forward. It could say something like "If you already performed login in another window, please use the cancel button."

This is what it looks like, after logging in from another window. See how it says "Opening remote" at the bottom, but nothing happens? I think it would be nice if we could make it successfully load the workspace in the background. Without looking at the actual code, perhaps we could do something along the lines ofawait Promise.race([loginmodal, loginevent]). If the workspace has loaded in the background, that's further confirmation for the user they can just hitcancel. Wdyt?

I like this idea. Updating the modal to clearly indicate that a login happens in another window, plus adding background login capability, would be a solid improvement. I think this is possible but I'll be careful to avoid any racey conditions.

I think the following makes sense:

Description:

You must log in to access ${workspaceName}. If you already performed login in another window, please close this popup.

Then it's a race between two conditions as you said, 1. Login event, 2. Modal interaction. In the case of a login event, if the user clicks anything (x,Cancel,Login) it will just dismiss the modal and show the already connected workspace. The flow for the modal interaction stays the same as before.

It's a bit strange to me that authentication is performed immediately after you've typed in your token, not when pressing [Enter]. (What if you're typing it manually.)

I think this is to provide feedback as soon as possible, VS Code allows this "validateInput" callback. If we want it on "Enter" only it might look a bit more awkward since we'd have to manually implement this validation.

I'm also not sure why this breaks the login flow, perhaps a login attempt (even if failed) is considered a resolution of the promise.

Hmmm, I tried the reproducer and it seems to work (no breakage), we should only show the "Welcome" message (and resolve the promise) if the token is correct anyway, otherwise it's like nothing has changed. Did you do something else in the meantime? 🤔

I think this is to provide feedback as soon as possible, VS Code allows this "validateInput" callback. If we want it on "Enter" only it might look a bit more awkward since we'd have to manually implement this validation.

I kind of get it, but the current impl. is also kind of awkward when doing anything other than copy pasting. We can put that aside for now though, it's not relevant for this PR.

Hmmm, I tried the reproducer and it seems to work (no breakage), we should only show the "Welcome" message (and resolve the promise) if the token is correct anyway, otherwise it's like nothing has changed. Did you do something else in the meantime? 🤔

I can reproduce it quite reliably (even with your latest push). And it seems it's not even a requirement to enter the wrong token first. I'm not sure of the exact cause but I've managed to reproduce in various scenarios:

1. Enter wrong token first, then correct
2. Enter token fast (ready in clipboard)
3. Enter token slowly (wait a longer time before paste)

Hmmmm, to me this means it's one of two things: either we have a race where the 2nd window does not read the correctly entered configurations fast enough or that the session token has not changed (the latter is impossible if you deleted thesession file so we can rule it out).

Can I bother you one more time to test the latest push so we can rule out (1)? I sadly cannot reproduce so I'm not sure if this fixes it.

Also are you using Windows/Mac/Linux?

Thanks, I tested the new commit but there was no difference.

2nd window does not read the correctly entered configurations fast enough or that the session token has not changed (the latter is impossible if you deleted the session file so we can rule it out).

Glad you mentioned this because it seems to be exactly what's going on. I can reproduce the issue as long as I have the same token in my clipboard which I paste in, but if I grab a new token login works as expected. In either case the token is valid, it's just that in the bug scenario, the same token is used for all attempts.

Could it be that even when deleting thesession file, VS Code, or our extension, has some recollection of the old value and ignores the login in other windows because the value didn't change? It seems like the value shouldn't matter, jus that if there was an event, we can try to login.

Could it be that even when deleting thesession file, VS Code, or our extension, has some recollection of the old value and ignores the login in other windows because the value didn't change? It seems like the value shouldn't matter, just that if there was an event, we can try to login.

Oooh I think I might know where this goes wrong now, we store the session in two different ways, once as a file for the CLI to use (this is thesession that you deleted in your reproducer) and the other in the secrets (VS Code maintains that key-value pair internally). In this PR, we respond to session token secret change event since that is stored globally across different VS Code windows. In your case, the session token didn't change so there was no event, even though the CLIsession file was deleted (out of sync).

I don't want us to resort to file watchers but this should somehow be unified so there's one source of truth, I'll have a think and try to find an elegant solution 🤔