Skip to content

Conversation

@remimimimimi
Copy link
Contributor

Before we used eprintln! for output, then progress println introduced regression in this particular case. It seems that it works incorrectly if no progress bar is spawned.

Since this particular piece of code doesn't involve progress bar it is safe to revert back to eprintln!.

So before output of pixi run in the root dir of the repo was:

image

And now:

image

Copy link
Contributor

@Hofer-Julian Hofer-Julian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This effectively switches from printing to stdout to stderr. Do you know why this fixes things? I would expect that also printing to stdout doesn't break your prompt

@remimimimimi
Copy link
Contributor Author

This effectively switches from printing to stdout to stderr. Do you know why this fixes things? I would expect that also printing to stdout doesn't break your prompt

Before we also printed to stderr.

The problem is in the very same line. MultiProgress::is_hidden returns true only if target is set to hidden, but we never do that, so it evaluates to false and uses MultiProgress::println, which, I guess, assumes that progress bar was spawned.

@remimimimimi remimimimimi force-pushed the fix/available-tasks-output branch from 735616b to d5a087a Compare September 26, 2025 12:57
@Hofer-Julian
Copy link
Contributor

The problem is in the very same line. MultiProgress::is_hidden returns true only if target is set to hidden, but we never do that, so it evaluates to false and uses MultiProgress::println, which, I guess, assumes that progress bar was spawned.

Should we then maybe fix our macro instead?
And create an eprintln! variant while we are at it?

@remimimimimi
Copy link
Contributor Author

The problem is in the very same line. MultiProgress::is_hidden returns true only if target is set to hidden, but we never do that, so it evaluates to false and uses MultiProgress::println, which, I guess, assumes that progress bar was spawned.

Should we then maybe fix our macro instead? And create an eprintln! variant while we are at it?

Implementation seems correct. It is just that we didn't notified MultiProgress that it is currently hidden. I changed that and new implementation just does that.

@Hofer-Julian Hofer-Julian merged commit e274c11 into prefix-dev:main Sep 26, 2025
73 of 74 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants