On Mon, May 24 2021, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 04:38:18PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> On 5/24/21 4:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> > Hm, I think this test strategy is going to be fundamentally flaky >> > regardless: Git doesn't intend to guarantee any kind of stability in >> > the exact stderr output it writes. >> >> There are no expectations that stderr is stable across >> versions of Git. These tests don't add friction to developers >> making new features or changing the error messages that appear >> over stderr. It's just that these tests should catch any >> unintended inconsistency across these modes. > > I agree with Stolee that these tests are valuable for asserting that > output is the consistent whether or not you are using the sparse index. > > I find setting GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY to a large number to a be a little > ugly, but there isn't an apparent better way to accomplish the same > thing. Of course, it would be nice to have an environment variable to > specify where progress meters are written to, or a global option to > disable progress meters altogether. > > But I don't think this isolated instance should push in the direction of > adding support for either of the above, regardless of how easy it might > be. I don't see why we wouldn't just tweak GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY to support -1 or something for "inf". It was added as a one-off (it seems for testing, but made public, so not in the GIT_TEST_* namespace) in 44a4693bfce (progress: create GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY, 2019-11-25). The progress.c API will already nicely deal with this case if something in start_progress_delay() is made to return NULL if we pass a flag down to it. > What would perhaps make more sense is to silence the progress meters > from the commands themselves. AFAICT the only command called by > run_on_sparse() which generates a progress meter is 'git checkout', > 'git merge', and 'git submodule', all of which support '--no-progress'. > Might it be worth passing that option instead of setting > GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY to a large value? > > (For what it's worth, I have no strong opinion either way, so I would be > happy to attach my Reviewed-by to even the current version of this patch). > > Thanks, > Taylor
