On Wed, Sep 19 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 07:22:44PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > Do we have --quiet option or something that needs to completely
>> > suppress this progress thing?
>>
>> Yes. I also see my commit graph process patches sitting in "next" broke
>> the "git gc --quiet" mode, and I'll need to submit something on top
>> (which'll be easy), and submit a v2 on this (pending further
>> comments...).
>>
>> Is there a better way to test that (fake up the file descriptor check)
>> in the tests other than adding getenv("GIT_TEST...") to the progress.c
>> logic?
>
> The progress code doesn't do the isatty() check at all. The caller has
> to do it (and ideally would respect --progress/--no-progress to
> override, along with having --quiet imply --no-progress if such an
> option exists).
Yeah, what I was confused by was testing this with "git gc", and until
my recent commit graph progress patches + this (which I wasn't testing
against) the progress output was all from pack-objects, which checks the
--progress option, and then proceeds to ignore all of that and just
check isatty().
> Once you have all that, then you can test --progress explicitly. If you
> want to check the isatty() handling, you can use test_terminal().
Thanks.
