Closed epwalsh closed 2 years ago
What about users that use TQDM?
What about users that use TQDM?
Just because we use rich progress bars internally doesn't mean users can't use Tqdm for whatever else
Those will not be file friendly then. Which is OK, I guess.
For Tango, there is also a backwards compatibility issue. I have written a fair amount of code that uses Tango's TQDM.
Those will not be file friendly then. Which is OK, I guess.
The FILE_FRIENDLY_FLAG
here doesn't affect TQDM globally anyway.
For Tango, there is also a backwards compatibility issue. I have written a fair amount of code that uses Tango's TQDM.
We could keep our TQDM class for backwards compat, but just use rich under the hood.
Does rich take the same kwargs
?
There are probably some differences, but we could keep our Tqdm interface the same.
This is an experimental PR to get away from
tqdm
and start usingrich
for everything. Rich does a good job of automatically logging in a file-friendly way when it detects it's running in a non-interactive session. The behavior can also easily be customized by users by configuring rich's defaultConsole
. So I don't think there's any need to have our ownFILE_FRIENDLY_LOGGING
logic here. Hence that stuff has been removed.We're already using rich for logging / pretty printing in tango and for progress bars in beaker-py. Might as well commit to rich and get rid of Tqdm across our ecosystems, in my opinion. So if ya'll agree with that, we can port this over to Tango as well and get rid out
tango.common.tqdm
.