RE: [PATCH 00/25] progress.c: various fixes + SZEDER's RFC code

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On June 23, 2021 1:48 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 02:59:53AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 20 2021, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>>
>>> > Splitting off from:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://public-inbox.org/git/cover-0.2-0000000000-20210607T144206Z-
>>> > avarab@gmail.com/T/#me5d3176914d4268fd9f2a96fc63f4e41beb26bd6
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 06:14:42PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>>> >> I wonder (only in a semi-curious way, though) if we can detect
>>> >> off-by-one errors by adding an assertion to display_progress()
>>> >> that requires the first update to have the value 0, and in
>>> >> stop_progress() one that requires the previous display_progress()
>>> >> call to have a value equal to the total number of work items.  Not
>>> >> sure it'd be worth the hassle..
>>> >
>>> > I fixed and reported a number of bogus progress lines in the past,
>>> > the last one during v2.31.0-rc phase, so I've looked into whether
>>> > progress counters could be automatically validated in our tests,
>>> > and came up with these patches a few months ago.  It turned out
>>> > that progress counters can be checked easily and transparently in
>>> > case of progress lines that are shown in the tests, i.e. that are
>>> > shown even when stderr is not a terminal or are forced with
>>> > '--progress'.  (In other cases it's still fairly easy but not quite
>>> > transparent, as I think we need changes to the progress API; more
>>> > on that later in a separate
>>> > series.)
>>>
>>> I've also been working on some progress.[ch] patches that are mostly
>>> finished, and I'm some 20 patches in at the moment. I wasn't sure
>>> about whether to send an alternate 20-patch "let's do this (mostly) instead?"
>>> series, hence this message.
>>>
>>> Much of what you're doing here becomes easier after that series, e.g.
>>> your global process struct in 2/7 is something I ended up
>>> implementing as part of a general feature to allow progress to be
>>> driven by either display_progress() *or* the signal handler itself.
>>
>> It's difficult to know who should rebase onto who without seeing one
>> half of the patches.
>
>I was sort of hoping he'd take me word for it, but here it is. Don't say I didn't warn you :)
>
>> I couldn't find a link to them anywhere (even if they are only
>> available in your fork in a pre-polished state) despite looking, but
>> my apologies if they are available and I'm just missing them.
>
>FWIW it's avar-szeder/progress-bar-assertions in https://github.com/avar/git.git, that repo contains various functioning and not-so-
>functioning code.
>
>https://github.com/avar/git/tree/meta/ is my version of the crappy scripts we probably all have some version of for building my own git,
>things that are uncommented in series.conf is what I build my own git from.
>
>> In general, I think that these patches are clear and are helpful in
>> pinning down issues with the progress API (which I have made a hadnful
>> of times in the past), so I would be happy to see them picked up.
>
>Here's all 25 patches (well, around 20 before) that I had queued up locally and fixed up a bit.
>
>The 01/25 is something I submitted already as https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-1.1-cba5d88ca35-20210621T070114Z-avarab@gmail.com;
>hoping to get this in incrementally.
>
>The 12/25 is my own version of that "global progress struct, 11/25 is the first of many bugs SZEDER missed in his :)
>
>18/25 is the first step of the UI I was going for, the signal handler can now drive the progress bar, so e.g. during "git gc" we show (at least
>for me, on git.git), a "stalled" message just before we start the actual count of "Enumerating Objects".
>
>After that was in I was planning on adding config-driven support to show a "spinner" when we stalled in that way, config-driven because
>you could just scrape e.g. https://github.com/sindresorhus/cli-spinners/blob/main/spinners.json
>into your own config. See
>https://jsfiddle.net/sindresorhus/2eLtsbey/embedded/result/ :)
>
>19-23/25 is my grabbing of SZEDER's patches that I'm comfortable labeling as "PATCH", I think they work, but no BUG() assertions yet. I
>left out the GIT_TEST_CHECK_PROGRESS parts, since my earlier works set things up to do any BUG() we trust by default.
>
>22/25 is what I think we should do instead of SZEDER's 6/7
>(http://lore.kernel.org/git/20210620200303.2328957-7-szeder.dev@gmail.com)
>I don't think this "our total doesn't match at the end" is something we should always BUG() on, for reasons explained there.
>
>I am sympathetic to doing it by default though, hence the
>stop_progress_early() API, that's there to allow select callers to bypass his BUG(...) assertion.
>
>24/25 and 25/25 are "RFC" and a rebased+modified version of SZEDER's
>BUG(...) assertions.
>
>His series passes the test suite, but actually severely break things things. It'll make e.g. "git commit-graph write" BUG(...) out. The reason
>the tests don't catch it is because we have a blind spot in the tests.
>
>Namely, that most things that use the progress bar API use isatty() to check if they should start_progress(). If you run the tests as e.g.
>(better ways to do this, especially in parallel, most welcome):
>
>    for t in t[0-9]*.sh; do if ! ./$t -vixd; then echo $t bad; break; fi; done
>
>You can discover various things that his series BUG()'s on, I fixed a couple of those myself, it's an early part of this series.
>
>But we'll still have various untested for BUG()'s even then, this is because you *also* have to have the test actually emit a "naked"
>progress bar on stderr, if the test itself e.g. pipes fd 2 to a file it won't work.
>
>I created a shitty-and-mostly-broken throwaway change to search-replace all the guards of "start_progress(...)" to run unconditionally, and
>convert all the "delayed" to the non-delayed version. That'll find even more BUG()'s where SZEDER's series still needs to be fixed (and also
>some unrelated segfaults, I gave up on it soon after).
>
>Even if we fix that I wouldn't trust it, because a lot of the progress bars we have depend on the size and shape of the data we're
>processing, e.g. the bug I fixed in 11/25. If people find this BUG() approach worth pursuing I think it would be better to make it an opt-in
>flag we convert one caller at a time to.
>
>For some it's really clear that we could assert it, for others such as the commit-graph it's much more subtle, we're in some callback after
>setting a "total", that callback does a "break", "continue" etc. in various places, all depending on repository data.
>
>It's not easy to reason about that and be certain that we can hold to the estimate. If we get it wrong someone's repo in the wild won't fully
>GC because of the overly eager BUG().
>
>If SZEDER wants to pursue it I think it'll be easier on top of this series, but personally I really don't see the point of spending effort on it.
>
>We should really be going in the other direction, of having more fuzzy ETAs, not less.
>
>E.g. we often have enough data at the start of "Enumerating Objects"
>to give a good-enough target value, that it's 5-10% off isn't really the point, but that the user looking at it sees something better than a
>dumb count-up, and can instead see that they'll probably be looking at it for about a minute. Now our API is to give no ETA/target if we're
>not 100% sure, it's not good UX.
>
>So trying to get the current exact count/exact percentage right seems like a distraction to me in the longer term. If anything we should
>just be rounding those numbers, showing fuzzy ETAs instead of percentages if we can etc.
>
>SZEDER Gábor (4):
>  commit-graph: fix bogus counter in "Scanning merged commits" progress
>    line
>  entry: show finer-grained counter in "Filtering content" progress line
>  progress: assert last update in stop_progress()
>  progress: assert counting upwards in display()
>
>Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (21):
>  progress.c tests: fix breakage with COLUMNS != 80
>  progress.c tests: make start/stop verbs on stdin
>  progress.c tests: test some invalid usage
>  progress.c tests: add a "signal" verb
>  progress.c: move signal handler functions lower
>  progress.c: call progress_interval() from progress_test_force_update()
>  progress.c: stop eagerly fflush(stderr) when not a terminal
>  progress.c: add temporary variable from progress struct
>  midx perf: add a perf test for multi-pack-index
>  progress.c: remove the "sparse" mode nano-optimization
>  pack-bitmap-write.c: add a missing stop_progress()
>  progress.c: add & assert a "global_progress" variable
>  progress.[ch]: move the "struct progress" to the header
>  progress.[ch]: move test-only code away from "extern" variables
>  progress.c: pass "is done?" (again) to display()
>  progress.[ch]: convert "title" to "struct strbuf"
>  progress.c: refactor display() for less confusion, and fix bug
>  progress.c: emit progress on first signal, show "stalled"
>  midx: don't provide a total for QSORT() progress
>  progress.c: add a stop_progress_early() function
>  entry: deal with unexpected "Filtering content" total
>
> cache.h                          |   1 -
> commit-graph.c                   |   2 +-
> csum-file.h                      |   2 -
> entry.c                          |  12 +-
> midx.c                           |  25 +-
> pack-bitmap-write.c              |   1 +
> pack.h                           |   1 -
> parallel-checkout.h              |   1 -
> progress.c                       | 391 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> progress.h                       |  50 +++-
> reachable.h                      |   1 -
> t/helper/test-progress.c         |  54 +++--
> t/perf/p5319-multi-pack-index.sh |  21 ++
> t/t0500-progress-display.sh      | 247 ++++++++++++++-----
> 14 files changed, 537 insertions(+), 272 deletions(-)  create mode 100755 t/perf/p5319-multi-pack-index.sh

Is there provision for disabling progress on a per-command basis? My use case is specifically in a CI/CD script, being able to suppress progress handling. The current Jenkins plugin does not appear to have provision for hooking into a mechanism, which makes things get a bit wonky when a job runs with a pseudo-tty (as provided by Jenkins through SSH/RMI).
-Randall