Re: [PATCH 0/2] Revert "progress: use term_clear_line()"

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:54:10PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:

> > Yes on that final bit. We could always fall back to (4) if the terminal
> > information is not available, but given that the benefit is mostly in
> > simplifying the code, I don't know if it's worth carrying around _two_
> > solutions.
> 
> Ok, so here is a patch to revert 5b12e3123b (progress: use
> term_clear_line(), 2019-06-24) with proper explanation.
> 
> As a bonus there is a new test script exercising the progress display
> as well, in particular how it covers up the previous progress line, so
> we may have a bit more confidence in it.

Thanks for doing this. It's especially nice to get test coverage for the
progress meters, which have traditionally been neglected.

I'm a little late on my review, as it looks like this has already hit
next, but it looks pretty good to me.

My only complaint is that I think putting the new "private" bits of the
progress API into the header (with a comment) is a lesser evil than
re-declaring them in test-progress.c (if only because the compiler could
tell us if the two get out of sync). But I can live with it either way.

-Peff