outputs 'env activate' verbose message on stderr

[deronnax]

Pull Request Check List

Resolves: #10351

• Added tests for changed code.
• Updated documentation for changed code.

I don't think it needs a documentation change (this corner case wasn't documented in the first place).

Summary by Sourcery

Modify Poetry's run command to output the virtualenv activation message to stderr instead of stdout when in verbose mode

Bug Fixes:

• Ensure that the virtualenv activation message is printed to stderr when running in verbose mode

Tests:

• Updated test case to verify the virtualenv activation message is now output to stderr

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request changes the output stream of the virtual environment path message from stdout to stderr when running in verbose mode. This change was accompanied by a test update to ensure the correct output stream is being used.

No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
The pull request modifies the configure_env method in Application class to output the virtual environment path to stderr instead of stdout when in verbose mode.	Changed io.write_line to io.write_error_line in configure_env method.	src/poetry/console/application.py
The pull request updates the test case test_run_passes_args_after_run_before_command_name_conflict to assert that the virtual environment path is printed to stderr.	Updated the assertion to check the error output instead of the standard output. Removed formatting from the error output before assertion.	tests/console/commands/test_run.py

Possibly linked issues

• poetry env activate -v should log on stderr instead of stdout #10351: The PR fixes the issue where "poetry env activate" returns an expression instead of activating the environment. The PR modifies the run command to output the virtual environment's path to stderr, which addresses the issue described in the issue.

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!
• Generate a plan of action for an issue: Comment @sourcery-ai plan on
  an issue to generate a plan of action for it.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @deronnax - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

Overall Comments:

• It's great that you're directing the verbose message to stderr, as it's the correct stream for informational messages that don't represent standard output.

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[radoering]

Can you add a test in test_activate.py that checks that the output only contains the desired line and not any additional information in verbose mode?

[deronnax]

I added the verbose mode in the existing tests, it seems better to me than adding an extra test just for this.
Also, I took the liberty to change this line:
line = tester.io.fetch_output().rstrip("\n")
to this
line = tester.io.fetch_output().split("\n")[0]
Because to me it was much clearer on the intent (we don't want all output'd lines split by newlines and keep only the first as we could be believe, we actually want everything output'd, except the newline).
Also did it to the Windows test, for consistency within the file.

[radoering]

Also, I took the liberty to change this line:

Agreed.

I added the verbose mode in the existing tests, it seems better to me than adding an extra test just for this.

Strictly speaking, we cannot be sure that it still works without verbose output if we just test the verbose mode. Thus, I think it makes sense to test both (parametrized). However, even more important, we have to use an ApplicationTester instead of a CommandTester. Otherwise, the offending line will not show up (without the fix). Thereby, we also ensure to get the most output. I just added an additional test due to the slightly different setup and to keep test concerns separate.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.