On Wed, Jun 23 2021, Randall S. Becker wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxx/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@xxxxxxxxx; >>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@xxxxxxxxx) >>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 There isn't, some commands support --no-progress, but it's hit and miss. You can then set the undocumented GIT_PROGRESS_DELAY=99999999 (or some really big number) to suppress more of them. We could just add it as a top-level "git --no-progress" option I suppose... Probably better would be to detect such not-a-terminals somehow, I think at some point our own gc.log was a victim of this.
