microsoft
/
git
зеркало из https://github.com/microsoft/git.git
1
0
Форкнуть 0
Код Задачи Пакеты Проекты Релизы Вики Активность
git/progress.h

28 строки
852 B
C
Исходник Постоянная ссылка Обычный вид История

Make macros to prevent double-inclusion in headers consistent. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-04-29 10:38:52 +04:00
#ifndef PROGRESS_H
#define PROGRESS_H
progress API: unify stop_progress{,_msg}(), fix trace2 bug Fix a bug that's been with us ever since 98a13647408 (trace2: log progress time and throughput, 2020-05-12), when the stop_progress_msg() API was used we didn't log a "region_leave" for the "region_enter" we start in "start_progress_delay()". The only user of the "stop_progress_msg()" function is "index-pack". Let's add a previously failing test to check that we have the same number of "region_enter" and "region_leave" events, with "-v" we'll log progress even in the test environment. In addition to that we've had a submarine bug here introduced with 9d81ecb52b5 (progress: add sparse mode to force 100% complete message, 2019-03-21). The "start_sparse_progress()" API would only do the right thing if the progress was ended with "stop_progress()", not "stop_progress_msg()". The only user of that API uses "stop_progress()", but let's still fix that along with the trace2 issue by making "stop_progress()" a trivial wrapper for "stop_progress_msg()". We can also drop the "if (progress)" test from "finish_if_sparse()". It's now a helper for the small "stop_progress_msg()" function. We'll already have returned from it if "progress" is "NULL". Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-02-04 00:40:18 +03:00
#include "gettext.h"
common progress display support 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>
2007-04-18 22:27:45 +04:00
make struct progress an opaque type 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>
2007-10-30 21:57:32 +03:00
struct progress;
common progress display support 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>
2007-04-18 22:27:45 +04:00
progress.c: silence cgcc suggestion about internal linkage Signed-off-by: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-27 17:22:37 +03:00
#ifdef GIT_TEST_PROGRESS_ONLY
extern int progress_testing;
extern uint64_t progress_test_ns;
void progress_test_force_update(void);
#endif
progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work 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>
2017-11-13 23:15:58 +03:00
void display_throughput(struct progress *progress, uint64_t total);
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>
2019-04-05 03:45:36 +03:00
void display_progress(struct progress *progress, uint64_t n);
progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work 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>
2017-11-13 23:15:58 +03:00
struct progress *start_progress(const char *title, uint64_t total);
progress: add sparse mode to force 100% complete message 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>
2019-03-21 22:36:11 +03:00
struct progress *start_sparse_progress(const char *title, uint64_t total);
progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work 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>
2017-11-13 23:15:58 +03:00
struct progress *start_delayed_progress(const char *title, uint64_t total);
progress: add sparse mode to force 100% complete message 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>
2019-03-21 22:36:11 +03:00
struct progress *start_delayed_sparse_progress(const char *title,
uint64_t total);
progress.h: format and be consistent with progress.c naming Fix an inconsistency introduced in dc6a0757c4f (make struct progress an opaque type, 2007-10-30) and rename the "progress" parameters to stop_progress{,_msg}() to "p_progress". Now these match the corresponding parameters in the *.c code. While we're at it let's move the definition of the former below the latter, a subsequent change will start defining stop_progress() in terms of stop_progress_msg(). Let's also remove the excess whitespace at the end of the file. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-02-04 00:40:15 +03:00
void stop_progress_msg(struct progress **p_progress, const char *msg);
progress API: unify stop_progress{,_msg}(), fix trace2 bug Fix a bug that's been with us ever since 98a13647408 (trace2: log progress time and throughput, 2020-05-12), when the stop_progress_msg() API was used we didn't log a "region_leave" for the "region_enter" we start in "start_progress_delay()". The only user of the "stop_progress_msg()" function is "index-pack". Let's add a previously failing test to check that we have the same number of "region_enter" and "region_leave" events, with "-v" we'll log progress even in the test environment. In addition to that we've had a submarine bug here introduced with 9d81ecb52b5 (progress: add sparse mode to force 100% complete message, 2019-03-21). The "start_sparse_progress()" API would only do the right thing if the progress was ended with "stop_progress()", not "stop_progress_msg()". The only user of that API uses "stop_progress()", but let's still fix that along with the trace2 issue by making "stop_progress()" a trivial wrapper for "stop_progress_msg()". We can also drop the "if (progress)" test from "finish_if_sparse()". It's now a helper for the small "stop_progress_msg()" function. We'll already have returned from it if "progress" is "NULL". Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-02-04 00:40:18 +03:00
static inline void stop_progress(struct progress **p_progress)
{
stop_progress_msg(p_progress, _("done"));
}
common progress display support 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>
2007-04-18 22:27:45 +04:00
#endif