From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 23:03:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] commit-graph: use start_delayed_progress()
Message-ID: <20191121230326.GW23183@szeder.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20191107212614.GC29042@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:26:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:46:58PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> 
> > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
> > 
> > When writing a commit-graph, we show progress along several commit
> > walks. When we use start_delayed_progress(), the progress line will
> > only appear if that step takes a decent amount of time.
> > 
> > However, one place was missed: computing generation numbers. This is
> > normally a very fast operation as all commits have been parsed in a
> > previous step. But, this is showing up for all users no matter how few
> > commits are being added.
> 
> This part of the patch is a good thing, and obviously correct. But I
> wondered...

Agreed.

> > The tests that check for the progress output have already been updated
> > to use GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY=0 to force the expected output. However, there
> > is one test in t6500-gc.sh that uses the test_terminal method. This
> > mechanism does not preserve the GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY environment variable,
> 
> Why doesn't GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY make it through? Overall it's not that
> big a deal to me if it doesn't, but in this test:

But I was wondering this, too.  If I run the following test:

        (
                write_script script <<-\EOF &&
                echo "GPD: $GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY"
                EOF
                GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY=42 &&
                export GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY &&
                test_terminal ./script dummy-arg
        ) &&

then its output looks like this:

  + write_script script
  + GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY=42
  + export GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY
  + test_terminal ./script dummy-arg
  GPD: 42

So test_terminal does preserve GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY.