mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "René Scharfe" <>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <>,
	"Derrick Stolee" <>
Cc:, "Junio C Hamano" <>,
	"Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: fix incorrect count and progress bar stalling
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 21:20:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Am 07.06.21 um 17:58 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
> On Mon, Jun 07 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>> On 6/7/2021 10:43 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> Fix a potential incorrect display of the number of items (off by one)
>>> and stalling of the progress bar in refresh_index().
>>> The off-by-one error is minor, we should say we're processing the 1st
>>> item, not the 0th. This along with the next change also allows us to
>>> remove the last display_progress() call outside the loop, as we'll
>>> always have reached 100% now.
>> This "pre-announce the progress" seems correct and is unlikely
>> to have a user sitting at "100%" while the loop is actually doing
>> work on that last cache entry.
> I guess pre-announce v.s. post-announce is a matter of some philosophy,
> for O(n) when can we be said to be doing work on n[0]? We entered the
> for-loop and are doing work on that istate->cache[i] item, so I'd like
> to think of it more as post-announce :)

Say you have a single item to process and it takes a minute.  The
original code shows 0% for a minute, then 100% at the end.  With your
change you'd get 100% for a minute.  Both would be annoying, but the
latter would have me raging.  "If you're done", I'd yell at the uncaring
machine, "what are you still doing!?".

Showing only the completed items makes sense.  That the next one is
being processed is self-understood.  Once all of them are done, 100% is
shown and the progress line is finished.

So I think this pattern works:

	for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
		display_progress(p, i);
		/* work work work */
	display_progress(p, nr);

Alternatively, if the work part doesn't contain continue statements:

	for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
		/* work work work */
		display_progress(p, i + 1);

> In any case, I'm changing this to the established pattern we use in most
> other places in the codebase, this one was an odd one out.

Consistency is a good thing, but perhaps some of these other places
should be changed.  It doesn't matter much because most items git deals
with are processed quickly, so an off-by-one error should barely be
noticeable, but still it would be nice to get it right.  It's hard to
test, though.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-07 19:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-07 14:43 [PATCH 0/2] trivial progress.c API usage fixes Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 14:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] read-cache.c: don't guard calls to progress.c API Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 15:28   ` Derrick Stolee
2021-06-07 15:52     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 16:11       ` Derrick Stolee
2021-06-07 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: fix incorrect count and progress bar stalling Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 15:31   ` Derrick Stolee
2021-06-07 15:58     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 19:20       ` René Scharfe [this message]
2021-06-07 19:49         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-07 23:41           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-06-08 10:58             ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-08 16:14               ` René Scharfe
2021-06-08 22:12                 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-10  5:30                   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-06-10 15:14                     ` René Scharfe
2021-06-10 15:14                   ` René Scharfe
2021-06-14 11:07                     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-14 17:18                       ` René Scharfe
2021-06-14 19:08                         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-15  2:32                           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-06-15 15:14                           ` René Scharfe
2021-06-15 16:46                             ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-06-20 12:53                               ` René Scharfe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).