YTEP-0039: Rich Terminal User Interface

[neutrinoceros]

TLDR: I propose replacing our logging handler with rich's version for it, and expose other potential applications for this library in yt.

Much more detail awaits in yt-project/yt#3106, but this YTEP specifies the new configuration parameters.

Here are the embedded illustrations to help visualise the proposed change for yt's logger

From a notebook

Legacy

Rich

From a terminal

Legacy

Rich

[matthewturk]

I like this a lot. Need to think about what default is for next release -- maybe gradual phase-in?

[neutrinoceros]

Yeah it could be added in time for 4.0 as an experimental feature and only made the default in 4.2 😃

[brittonsmith]

Ok, I like this quite a bit and it doesn't seem to be as invasive a change as I originally perceived. I'm quite intrigued by the idea of multiple concurrent progress bars mixed with logging messages. This could be neat for some parallel operations. I'm happy to accept this and for the corresponding yt PRs to go ahead.

[neutrinoceros]

I am tempted to drop this YTEP entirely for the following reasons:

• rich progress bars are not debugger friendly and it's not clear that they ever will be ([BUG] debugger inside progress bar Textualize/rich#1465)
• both patches #3106 and #3614 have been rotting for month now and I don't think they are worth the maintenance time they've cost me already
• the proposed enhancements are superficial, add dependencies, and do not add clear value for users
• I've been maintaining a very small project for a couple month now, who's sole dependency is rich, and report that upstream is far less stable that I would have hoped. For instance today CI is broken there because rich uses poetry as a build backend, but the latest version of setuptools breaks poetry. Yt doesn't currently depend on poetry, even indirectly, and I don't think it's worth the additional chances of breaking CI from upstream changes (something we see a lot in yt already).

@matthewturk, I suppose I should I mark this YTEP as "rejected", then we can merge this PR for posterity ?

[matthewturk]

Not yet? Can I read carefully before you do anything?

[neutrinoceros]

As you wish, but I TBH I don't think it's worth any more of anyone's time.

[neutrinoceros]

Sorry Matt I just can't keep circling back to this. I've marked the YTEP as withdrawn, and I'll close my associated PRs on the yt side.

[neutrinoceros]

I'll just merge myself here, as I can't think of any other route to go with a withdrawn proposal. The document only has a historical value now so there's no reason to change it anymore. I hope that's okay with everyone.