Re: [PATCH] t1092: use GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY for consistent results

Taylor Blau [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:57:52AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 24 2021, Taylor Blau wrote:

quoted

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".

Ironically, I think that this already works, since we parse the value of
GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY as unsigned, and don't bother checking for if the
input is negative (since we eventually call git_parse_unsigned(), which
doesn't have any extra checks other than for overflow).

So we silently convert -1 to 2^64-1, and call it a day.

Stepping back a bit, this is an unattended test---why do we even see
progress meters?  Are we forcing the output to tty somehow in our
tests, or do some codepaths forget to ask isatty() when the command
line does not say --progress or --no-progress?

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:54:56AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Stepping back a bit, this is an unattended test---why do we even see
progress meters?  Are we forcing the output to tty somehow in our
tests, or do some codepaths forget to ask isatty() when the command
line does not say --progress or --no-progress?

I found this while responding to Randall (who is observing the same
problem in another thread):

  https://lore.kernel.org/git/YK0TKVZidW%2FG8XBr@nand.local/

Thanks,
Taylor