## Summary of the Pull Request

This PR resolves an issue with the Git for Windows (MSYS) version of `less`. It _doesn't_ use VT processing for emitting text tothe buffer, so when it hits `WriteCharsLegacy`, `WC_DELAY_EOL_WRAP` is NOT set.

When this happens, `less` is writing some text that's longer than the width of the buffer to the last line of the buffer. We're hitting the
```c++
    Status = AdjustCursorPosition(screenInfo, CursorPosition, WI_IsFlagSet(dwFlags, WC_KEEP_CURSOR_VISIBLE), psScrollY);
```
call in `_stream.cpp:560`.

The cursor is _currently_ at `{40, 29}`, the _start_ of the run of text that wrapped. We're trying to adjust it to `{0, 30}`, which would be the start of the next line of the buffer. However, the buffer is only 30 lines tall, so we've got to `IncrementCircularBuffer` first, so we can move the cursor there.

When that happens, we're going to paint frame. At the end of that frame, we're going to try and paint the cursor position. The cursor is still at `{40, 29}` here, so unfortunately, the `cursorIsInDeferredWrap` check in `XtermEngine::PaintCursor` is `false`. That means, conpty is going to try to move the cursor to where the console thinks the cursor actually is at the end of this frame, which is `{40, 29}`.

If we're painting the frame because we circled the buffer, then the cursor might still be in the position it was before the text was written to the buffer to cause the buffer to circle. In that case, then we DON'T want to paint the cursor here either, because it'll cause us to manually break this line. That's okay though, the frame will be painted again, after the circling is complete.

## PR Checklist
* [x] Closes #5691
* [x] I work here
* [x] Tests added/passed
* [n/a] Requires documentation to be updated

## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments

I suppose that's the detailed description above

## Validation Steps Performed
* ran tests
* checked that the bug was actually fixed in the Terminal

(cherry picked from commit 3847271)

This reverts commit 3847271.

This reverts commit bffca4e.

This PR reverts a relatively minor change that was made incorrectly to
ConPTY in #5771.

In that PR, I authored two tests. One of them actually caught the bug
that was supposed to be fixed by #5771. The other test was simply
authored during the investigation. I believed at the time that the test
revealed a bug in conpty that was fixed by _removing_ this block of
code. However, an investigation itno #5839 revealed that this code was
actually fairly critical. 

So, I'm also _skipping_ this buggy test for now. I'm also adding a
specific test case to this bug.

The problem in the bugged case of `WrapNewLineAtBottom` is that
`WriteCharsLegacy` is wrapping the bottom row of the ConPTY buffer,
which is causing the cursor to automatically move to the next line in
the buffer. This is because `WriteCharsLegacy` isn't being called with
the `WC_DELAY_EOL_WRAP` flag. So, in that test case, 
* The client emits a wrapped line to conpty
* conpty fills the bottom line with that text, then dutifully increments
  the buffer to make space for the cursor on a _new_ bottom line.
* Conpty reprints the last `~` of the wrapped line
* Then it gets to the next line, which is being painted _before_ the
  client emits the rest of the line of text to fill that row.
* Conpty thinks this row is empty, (it is) and manually breaks the row. 

However, the test expects this row to be emitted as wrapped. The problem
comes from the torn state in the middle of these frames - the original
line probably _should_ remain wrapped, but this is a sufficiently rare
case that the fix is being punted into the next release. 

It's possible that improving how we handle line wrapping might also fix
this case - currently we're only marking a row as wrapped when we print
the last cell of a row, but we should probably mark it as wrapped
instead when we print the first char of the _following_ row. That work
is being tracked in #5800

### The real bug in this PR

The problem in the `DeleteWrappedWord` test is that the first line is
still being marked as wrapped. So when we get to painting the line below
it, we'll see that there are no characters to be printed (only spaces),
we emit a `^[20X^[20C`, but the cursor is still at the end of the first
line. Because it's there, we don't actually clear the text we want to
clear.

So DeleteWrappedWord, #5839 needs the `_wrappedRow = std::nullopt;`
statement here.

## References
* I guess just look at #5800, I put everything in there.

## Validation Steps Performed
* Tested manually that this was fixed for the Terminal
* ran tests

Closes #5839

This PR reverts a relatively minor change that was made incorrectly to
ConPTY in #5771.

In that PR, I authored two tests. One of them actually caught the bug
that was supposed to be fixed by #5771. The other test was simply
authored during the investigation. I believed at the time that the test
revealed a bug in conpty that was fixed by _removing_ this block of
code. However, an investigation itno #5839 revealed that this code was
actually fairly critical.

So, I'm also _skipping_ this buggy test for now. I'm also adding a
specific test case to this bug.

The problem in the bugged case of `WrapNewLineAtBottom` is that
`WriteCharsLegacy` is wrapping the bottom row of the ConPTY buffer,
which is causing the cursor to automatically move to the next line in
the buffer. This is because `WriteCharsLegacy` isn't being called with
the `WC_DELAY_EOL_WRAP` flag. So, in that test case,
* The client emits a wrapped line to conpty
* conpty fills the bottom line with that text, then dutifully increments
  the buffer to make space for the cursor on a _new_ bottom line.
* Conpty reprints the last `~` of the wrapped line
* Then it gets to the next line, which is being painted _before_ the
  client emits the rest of the line of text to fill that row.
* Conpty thinks this row is empty, (it is) and manually breaks the row.

However, the test expects this row to be emitted as wrapped. The problem
comes from the torn state in the middle of these frames - the original
line probably _should_ remain wrapped, but this is a sufficiently rare
case that the fix is being punted into the next release.

It's possible that improving how we handle line wrapping might also fix
this case - currently we're only marking a row as wrapped when we print
the last cell of a row, but we should probably mark it as wrapped
instead when we print the first char of the _following_ row. That work
is being tracked in #5800

### The real bug in this PR

The problem in the `DeleteWrappedWord` test is that the first line is
still being marked as wrapped. So when we get to painting the line below
it, we'll see that there are no characters to be printed (only spaces),
we emit a `^[20X^[20C`, but the cursor is still at the end of the first
line. Because it's there, we don't actually clear the text we want to
clear.

So DeleteWrappedWord, #5839 needs the `_wrappedRow = std::nullopt;`
statement here.

## References
* I guess just look at #5800, I put everything in there.

## Validation Steps Performed
* Tested manually that this was fixed for the Terminal
* ran tests

Closes #5839

(cherry picked from commit b4c33dd)

## Summary of the Pull Request

This PR resolves an issue with the Git for Windows (MSYS) version of `less`. It _doesn't_ use VT processing for emitting text tothe buffer, so when it hits `WriteCharsLegacy`, `WC_DELAY_EOL_WRAP` is NOT set.

When this happens, `less` is writing some text that's longer than the width of the buffer to the last line of the buffer. We're hitting the 
```c++
    Status = AdjustCursorPosition(screenInfo, CursorPosition, WI_IsFlagSet(dwFlags, WC_KEEP_CURSOR_VISIBLE), psScrollY);
```
call in `_stream.cpp:560`.

The cursor is _currently_ at `{40, 29}`, the _start_ of the run of text that wrapped. We're trying to adjust it to `{0, 30}`, which would be the start of the next line of the buffer. However, the buffer is only 30 lines tall, so we've got to `IncrementCircularBuffer` first, so we can move the cursor there.

When that happens, we're going to paint frame. At the end of that frame, we're going to try and paint the cursor position. The cursor is still at `{40, 29}` here, so unfortunately, the `cursorIsInDeferredWrap` check in `XtermEngine::PaintCursor` is `false`. That means, conpty is going to try to move the cursor to where the console thinks the cursor actually is at the end of this frame, which is `{40, 29}`.

If we're painting the frame because we circled the buffer, then the cursor might still be in the position it was before the text was written to the buffer to cause the buffer to circle. In that case, then we DON'T want to paint the cursor here either, because it'll cause us to manually break this line. That's okay though, the frame will be painted again, after the circling is complete.

## PR Checklist
* [x] Closes microsoft#5691
* [x] I work here
* [x] Tests added/passed
* [n/a] Requires documentation to be updated

## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments

I suppose that's the detailed description above

## Validation Steps Performed
* ran tests
* checked that the bug was actually fixed in the Terminal

This PR reverts a relatively minor change that was made incorrectly to
ConPTY in microsoft#5771.

In that PR, I authored two tests. One of them actually caught the bug
that was supposed to be fixed by microsoft#5771. The other test was simply
authored during the investigation. I believed at the time that the test
revealed a bug in conpty that was fixed by _removing_ this block of
code. However, an investigation itno microsoft#5839 revealed that this code was
actually fairly critical. 

So, I'm also _skipping_ this buggy test for now. I'm also adding a
specific test case to this bug.

The problem in the bugged case of `WrapNewLineAtBottom` is that
`WriteCharsLegacy` is wrapping the bottom row of the ConPTY buffer,
which is causing the cursor to automatically move to the next line in
the buffer. This is because `WriteCharsLegacy` isn't being called with
the `WC_DELAY_EOL_WRAP` flag. So, in that test case, 
* The client emits a wrapped line to conpty
* conpty fills the bottom line with that text, then dutifully increments
  the buffer to make space for the cursor on a _new_ bottom line.
* Conpty reprints the last `~` of the wrapped line
* Then it gets to the next line, which is being painted _before_ the
  client emits the rest of the line of text to fill that row.
* Conpty thinks this row is empty, (it is) and manually breaks the row. 

However, the test expects this row to be emitted as wrapped. The problem
comes from the torn state in the middle of these frames - the original
line probably _should_ remain wrapped, but this is a sufficiently rare
case that the fix is being punted into the next release. 

It's possible that improving how we handle line wrapping might also fix
this case - currently we're only marking a row as wrapped when we print
the last cell of a row, but we should probably mark it as wrapped
instead when we print the first char of the _following_ row. That work
is being tracked in microsoft#5800

### The real bug in this PR

The problem in the `DeleteWrappedWord` test is that the first line is
still being marked as wrapped. So when we get to painting the line below
it, we'll see that there are no characters to be printed (only spaces),
we emit a `^[20X^[20C`, but the cursor is still at the end of the first
line. Because it's there, we don't actually clear the text we want to
clear.

So DeleteWrappedWord, microsoft#5839 needs the `_wrappedRow = std::nullopt;`
statement here.

## References
* I guess just look at microsoft#5800, I put everything in there.

## Validation Steps Performed
* Tested manually that this was fixed for the Terminal
* ran tests

Closes microsoft#5839