runner: report progress via OSC 9;4 sequences

[T1mVo]

Summary

See commit messages.

Preview in Ghostty:

Screen.Recording.2026-08-21.at.20.33.16.mov

Related Issues

Closes #314

Checklist

• I have structured my commits according to the commit guidelines (if applicable).
• I have added tests for new features (if applicable).
• I have updated the documentation (if applicable).

[tingerrr]

Have you tested this with a terminal that does not support OSC 9;4? What happens in this case? I imagine we might need to add a user-wide configuration in which we can configure this or query the terminal database to see which terminals support it. I'd say that this is where an extra dependency would be warranted.

[T1mVo]

Have you tested this with a terminal that does not support OSC 9;4? What happens in this case?

I've tested it with Warp and the default macOS Terminal. Both show the normal output.

I imagine we might need to add a user-wide configuration in which we can configure this or query the terminal database to see which terminals support it. I'd say that this is where an extra dependency would be warranted.

I did some further research into how Cargo handles this. They use anstyle-progress, which does have a method for checking terminal support and also allows manual configuration.

I would switch the implementation to use anstyle-progress. I could also add a global config option to disable it if desired. Not sure if tytanic even has global config options yet.

[tingerrr]

I did some further research into how Cargo handles this. They use anstyle-progress, which does have a method for checking terminal support and also allows manual configuration.

Seems like the right choice then, we'll have to see how well this interacts with the terminal library Typst uses since we use it in a few places too through typst-kit, but perhaps it's fine.

I would switch the implementation to use anstyle-progress. I could also add a global config option to disable it if desired. Not sure if tytanic even has global config options yet.

Not yet, hence why I'm a little on the fence about this. If you want, you could add that in a PR and stack this one on top. I don't think I can enable GitHub's Stacked PRs, but I can manage reviewing either way.

[T1mVo]

I copied the system config structure from Cargo for now. I also thought about just adding a top-level key for it but I think this depends on which option get added here in the future. I am open for suggestions here.

[tingerrr]

LGTM, minor change request on the config structure.

I found out that Stderr::lock is reentrant while reviewing this and wasn't sure if it's fine to rely on this, but it turns out it is.

[tingerrr]

Thanks!