On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 8:15 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:04:48PM +0000, Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > +my @NOCOLORS = (bold => '', reset => '', blue => '', green => '', red => '');
> > +my %COLORS = ();
> > +sub get_colors {
> > + return \%COLORS if %COLORS;
> > + if (exists($ENV{NO_COLOR}) ||
> > + system("tput sgr0 >/dev/null 2>&1") != 0 ||
> > + system("tput bold >/dev/null 2>&1") != 0 ||
> > + system("tput setaf 1 >/dev/null 2>&1") != 0) {
> > + %COLORS = @NOCOLORS;
> > + return \%COLORS;
> > + }
> > + %COLORS = (bold => `tput bold`,
> > + reset => `tput sgr0`,
> > + blue => `tput setaf 4`,
> > + green => `tput setaf 2`,
> > + red => `tput setaf 1`);
> > + chomp(%COLORS);
> > + return \%COLORS;
> > +}
>
> This is a lot of new processes. Should be OK in the run-once-for-all-tests
> mode. It does make me wonder how much time regular test-lib.sh spends
> doing these tput checks for every script (at least it's not every
> snippet!).
This is indeed a lot of new processes, but this color interrogation is
done lazily, only if a problem is detected, so it should be zero-cost
in the (hopefully) normal case of a lint-clean script.
I had the exact same thought about the cost being paid by test-lib.sh
making all those `tput` invocations.
> It feels like we could build a color.sh snippet once and then include it
> in each script. But maybe that is dumb, since you could in theory build
> in one terminal and then run in another. Unlikely, but it shows that
> file dependencies are a mismatch. I guess a better match would be
> stuffing it into the environment before starting all of the tests.
That might be worth considering at some point.
> I ran this on my pre-fixup state where I had a half-dozen linter checks.
> It's _so_ much more readable. Thanks for working on it.
Good to hear.
