Centralize coloring control #374
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There are 2 requirements for coloring output: 1. It's supported on the platform 2. The user wants it: `IRB.conf[:USE_COLORIZE] == true` Right now we check 1 and 2 separately whenever we colorize things. But it's error-prone because while 1 is the default of `colorable` parameter, 2 always need to manually checked. When 2 is overlooked, it causes issues like ruby#362 And there's 0 case where we may want to colorize even when the user disables it. So I think we should merge 2 into `Color.colorable?` so it can be automatically picked up.
st0012
force-pushed
the
centralize-coloring-logic
branch
3 times, most recently
from
6bfaba8 to
44a78d1
Compare
st0012
force-pushed
the
centralize-coloring-logic
branch
2 times, most recently
from
18f3406 to
8716892
Compare
st0012
force-pushed
the
centralize-coloring-logic
branch
from
8716892 to
6be5a08
Compare
st0012
commented
Jun 27, 2022
| [:yaml, "BasicObject.new", /\(Object doesn't support #inspect\)\n(=> )?\n/], | ||
| [:marshal, "[Object.new, Class.new]", /\(Object doesn't support #inspect\)\n(=> )?\n/] | ||
| ] | ||
| }.each do |scenario, cases| |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@peterzhu2118 I ended up merging all cases together as the test body is the same. Wdyt?
matzbot
pushed a commit
to ruby/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
* Use colorable: argument as the only coloring control * Centalize color controling logic at Color.colorable? There are 2 requirements for coloring output: 1. It's supported on the platform 2. The user wants it: `IRB.conf[:USE_COLORIZE] == true` Right now we check 1 and 2 separately whenever we colorize things. But it's error-prone because while 1 is the default of `colorable` parameter, 2 always need to manually checked. When 2 is overlooked, it causes issues like ruby/irb#362 And there's 0 case where we may want to colorize even when the user disables it. So I think we should merge 2 into `Color.colorable?` so it can be automatically picked up. * Add tests for all inspect modes * Simplify inspectors' coloring logic * Replace use_colorize? with Color.colorable? * Remove Context#use_colorize cause it's redundant ruby/irb@1c53023ac4
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When deciding whether to color the output, we should always consider 2 things:
If one of them is
false, we shouldn't color the output.However, the current implementation only checks 1 by default and 2 needs an additional condition.
It makes code unnecessarily complicated and also error-prone. For example #362 was caused by missing 2.
So in this PR, I moved 2 into
Color.colorable?(where 1 locates) and removes all the manual check on 2, as well asContext#use_colorize.Test Result
Colorized
Non-colorized
(The weird floating "s"s were caused by my Neovim + Floaterm setup.)