| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Updating the display with progress message has been cleaned up to
deal better with overlong messages.
* sg/overlong-progress-fix:
progress: break too long progress bar lines
progress: clear previous progress update dynamically
progress: assemble percentage and counters in a strbuf before printing
progress: make display_progress() return void
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Ever since the progress infrastructure was introduced in 96a02f8f6d
(common progress display support, 2007-04-18), display_progress() has
returned an int, telling callers whether it updated the progress bar
or not. However, this is:
- useless, because over the last dozen years there has never been a
single caller that cared about that return value.
- not quite true, because it doesn't print a progress bar when
running in the background, yet it returns 1; see 85cb8906f0
(progress: no progress in background, 2015-04-13).
The related display_throughput() function returned void already upon
its introduction in cf84d51c43 (add throughput to progress display,
2007-10-30).
Let's make display_progress() return void, too. While doing so
several return statements in display() become unnecessary, remove
them.
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add new start_sparse_progress() and start_delayed_sparse_progress()
constructors and "sparse" flag to struct progress.
Teach stop_progress() to force a 100% complete progress message before
printing the final "done" message when "sparse" is set.
Calling display_progress() for every item in a large set can
be expensive. If callers try to filter this for performance
reasons, such as emitting every k-th item, progress would
not reach 100% unless they made a final call to display_progress()
with the item count before calling stop_progress().
Now this is automatic when "sparse" is set.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The possibility of setting merge.renameLimit beyond 2^16 raises the
possibility that the values passed to progress can exceed 2^32.
Use uint64_t, because it "ought to be enough for anybody". :-)
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We used to expose the full power of the delayed progress API to the
callers, so that they can specify, not just the message to show and
expected total amount of work that is used to compute the percentage
of work performed so far, the percent-threshold parameter P and the
delay-seconds parameter N. The progress meter starts to show at N
seconds into the operation only if we have not yet completed P per-cent
of the total work.
Most callers used either (0%, 2s) or (50%, 1s) as (P, N), but there
are oddballs that chose more random-looking values like 95%.
For a smoother workload, (50%, 1s) would allow us to start showing
the progress meter earlier than (0%, 2s), while keeping the chance
of not showing progress meter for long running operation the same as
the latter. For a task that would take 2s or more to complete, it
is likely that less than half of it would complete within the first
second, if the workload is smooth. But for a spiky workload whose
earlier part is easier, such a setting is likely to fail to show the
progress meter entirely and (0%, 2s) is more appropriate.
But that is merely a theory. Realistically, it is of dubious value
to ask each codepath to carefully consider smoothness of their
workload and specify their own setting by passing two extra
parameters. Let's simplify the API by dropping both parameters and
have everybody use (0%, 2s).
Oh, by the way, the percent-threshold parameter and the structure
member were consistently misspelled, which also is now fixed ;-)
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the same spirit of prettifying Git's output display for mere mortals,
here's a simple extension to the progress API allowing for a final
message to be provided when terminating a progress line, and use it for
the display of the number of objects needed to complete a thin pack,
saving yet one more line of screen display.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The throughput display needs a delay period before accounting and
displaying anything. Yet it might be called after some amount of data
has already been transferred. The display of total data is therefore
accounted late and therefore smaller than the reality.
Let's call display_throughput() with an absolute amount of transferred
data instead of a relative number, and let the throughput code find the
relative amount of data by itself as needed. This way the displayed
total is always exact.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This adds the ability for the progress code to also display transfer
throughput when that makes sense.
The math was inspired by commit c548cf4ee0737a321ffe94f6a97c65baf87281be
from Linus.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows for better management of progress "object" existence,
as well as making the progress display implementation more independent
from its callers.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Each progress can be on a single line instead of two.
[sp: Changed "Checking files out" to "Checking out files" at
Johannes Sixt's suggestion as it better explains the
action that is taking place]
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows for progress to be displayed only if the progress has not
reached a specified percentage treshold within a given delay in seconds.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If the progress bar ends up in a box, better provide a title for it too.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
|
|
Instead of having this code duplicated in multiple places, let's have
a common interface for progress display. If someday someone wishes to
display a cheezy progress bar instead then only one file will have to
be changed.
Note: I left merge-recursive.c out since it has a strange notion of
progress as it apparently increase the expected total number as it goes.
Someone with more intimate knowledge of what that is supposed to mean
might look at converting it to the common progress interface.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
