Thanks for the PR, please could you explain how this is better?

Thanks for the PR, please could you explain how this is better?

The os.isatty(sys.stdout.fileno()) is do more low-level check than sys.stdout.isatty()

Why is the CI failing with io.UnsupportedOperation: fileno?

Why is the CI failing with io.UnsupportedOperation: fileno?

Weird

Let me do more test

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (47b5c25) 100.00% compared to head (df006ef) 97.90%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #56      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   97.90%   -2.10%     
===========================================
  Files            4        4              
  Lines          125      143      +18     
===========================================
+ Hits           125      140      +15     
- Misses           0        3       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@hugovk Just update the test_termcolor.py to make it pass the check

Thanks for the PR, please could you explain how this is better?

The os.isatty(sys.stdout.fileno()) is do more low-level check than sys.stdout.isatty()

But why is this better?

Please could you fix the mypy error?

Also it looks like some other people also check for io.UnsupportedOperation - should we do that too?

https://github.com/pdm-project/pdm/blob/99e7877c98bf9beaa8468b1e6ee3365778a63c72/install-pdm.py#L167-L170

But why is this better?

I can't explain this sorry, but it actually works better than sys.stdout.isatty(), so I think it do more deep low-level check.

We currently have the problem that when displaying coloured output through rich.console the isatty() check fails.
Pennyw0rth/NetExec#86

Other popular projects like sqlmap uses fileno() as check if a terminal is attached https://github.com/sqlmapproject/sqlmap/blob/7a6abb56d29225b73d333df00ce06012517c5553/lib/core/settings.py#L262 and this method works for rich.console as well, so this might be a better check, although I am not super familiar with the low level checks that are done.

Why the workflow stucked here XD

Why the workflow stucked here XD

I need to approve it for first-time contributors:

I need to approve it for first-time contributors:

XD

So I think it can be merged, how do you think of it?

Thank you!