Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Linux: Plover does not recognize non-Qwerty layout #1395

Closed
lycheese opened this issue Aug 1, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

Linux: Plover does not recognize non-Qwerty layout #1395

lycheese opened this issue Aug 1, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@lycheese
Copy link

lycheese commented Aug 1, 2021

Describe the bug

When using bone as my software layout with xkb and my qmk keyboard with Plover and hitting the STN_HL, STN_E and STN_LR keys simultaneously Plover produces the output ufii instead of hell.

The only way I have found so far to get the expected behaviour is to specify the us layout in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/00-keyboard.conf and reboot.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Specify the bone layout through xorg config files and reboot
  2. Start Plover
  3. Send steno keycodes via qmk and gemini pr
  4. Produce garbled output

Expected behavior

Plover recognizes the different keyboard layout and adjusts accordingly.

Screenshots

Bone Layout:
image

Operating system

  • OS: NixOS 21.05
  • Plover Version 4.0.0.dev8

Hardware

I am using a Kyria with qmk firmware and a dedicated Plover layer:
image
I have not made any changes to the default machine configuration apart from selecting gemini pr:
image

@lycheese lycheese added the bug label Aug 1, 2021
@lycheese lycheese changed the title Plover does not recognize non-Qwerty layout Linux: Plover does not recognize non-Qwerty layout Aug 1, 2021
@user202729
Copy link
Member

Does

xdotool type hell

work correctly (type the correct content hell)?

@lycheese
Copy link
Author

lycheese commented Aug 1, 2021

Does

xdotool type hell

work correctly (type the correct content hell)?

No, it does not. But interestingly instead of Plover's ufii it types ueii. (It is very inconsistent though. Sometimes it mixes in up arrow presses and sometimes it produces ueie.)

Edit: Some of characters get through unchanged: xdotool type tieow produces tieow…what?

xdotool translations: [input --> output]

j --> q
d --> w
u --> e
a --> r
x --> t
p --> y
h --> u
l --> i
m --> o
w --> w
ß --> [

c --> a
t --> t
i --> i
e --> e
o --> o
b --> h
n --> j
r --> r
s --> s
g --> g
q --> q

f --> f
v --> x
ü --> c
ä --> (no-op)
ö --> b
y --> y
z --> z
, --> ;
. --> '
k --> k

Edit: I am getting more and more confused. The output above was produced by invoking xdotool via dmenu. If I use Emacs' inbuilt shell command dispatcher I get ufii from xdotool type hell like I got it from Plover.

Edit: After following this thread and executing setxkbmap -layout de -variant bone, xdotool type hell now produces 7.

Edit: Seems to be a known issue even though the way it acts here is quite odd.

@lycheese
Copy link
Author

lycheese commented Aug 1, 2021

It seems that the bug I encountered only happens when you have multiple keyboard layouts defined in the xorg config files. When only the bone layout is defined, the fix mentioned above (executing setxkbmap -layout de -variant bone) causes Plover to output the expected characters.

@user202729
Copy link
Member

Currently Plover does not support XKB properly (see #1164 (comment)), fixing this issue will require "a lot of work".

There are some other unofficial "output engine plugins" such as https://github.com/user202729/plover-ibus (read the disclaimer)

@lycheese
Copy link
Author

lycheese commented Aug 2, 2021

Currently Plover does not support XKB properly (see #1164 (comment)), fixing this issue will require "a lot of work".

There are some other unofficial "output engine plugins" such as https://github.com/user202729/plover-ibus (read the disclaimer)

Ah, okay. Luckily I do not need the second layout now that I have a qmk-enabled keyboard so it is no longer a problem for me. Should I close this issue or should I keep it open and make it more precise?

@benoit-pierre
Copy link
Member

Duplicate of #650.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants