Community
Participate
Working Groups
The message was introduced on bug 292831. The new message should be "Faster comparison algorithm used" as Markus suggested and a warning icon should be changed to info.
Created attachment 168163 [details] Patch_v01
Created attachment 168164 [details] Info icon
Markus, please review it. The effect is visible in attachment 168160 [details].
Perfect, thanks! +1 for RC1.
Changes in HEAD. Marking as FIXED. Thank you for the review.
Icon change is OK for me but changing the label is not OK: it destroys the whole idea of letting the user know that the result might not be accurate: no one would hover over an icon that tells you that a faster algorithm is used. Please pull out the text change. Markus agrees on that.
I still find "Matching might not be optimal" to be pretty unhelpful/useless. What about my text suggestions from bug 292831 comment 68? Short message: "False differences are possible" Hover: "To avoid long computation time a faster comparison algorithm has been used. As a result, differences might be shown in the viewer where there are none."
(In reply to comment #7) +1, even better.
+1
Created attachment 168201 [details] Patch_v02 (In reply to comment #7) > Short message: > "False differences are possible" > > Hover: > "To avoid long computation time a faster comparison algorithm has been used. As > a result, differences might be shown in the viewer where there are none." I had a discussion with Susan about this. "False differences are possible" is not exactly a precise label in this case. When faster algorithm is used there can be no differences in places where Compare doesn't show any. The problem is that a more optimal matching can find diffs in totally different places (for example at the end of the file where faster compare finds them at the beginning). Those are both correct matchings but we take the one resulting in the smallest edit distance as the best. We came up with following: Label: Differences shown not be optimal Hoover: To avoid long computation time a faster comparison algorithm has been used. As a result, the differences highlighted in the viewer may be larger than necessary. Patch making the necessary change.
> Label: Differences shown not be optimal That does not sound like correct English. Shouldn't it be: Differences shown may not be optimal ^^^
Or: The indicated differences might not be optimal.
Created attachment 168204 [details] Patch_v03
in general I prefer "may not be optimal" over "might not be optimal" but i think this is subjective on my part, I'm not sure one is more proper than the other. I'm okay with the patch.
Patch_v03 in HEAD. Marking as FIXED.
Verified in I20100516-0800.
The info message implied to me there is a slow detailed comparison algorithm, and so for the past 30 minutes resulted me trying to find how to activate it - does one exist and how to enable it? Thank you :)
(In reply to Daniel Sokolowski from comment #17) > The info message implied to me there is a slow detailed comparison > algorithm, and so for the past 30 minutes resulted me trying to find how to > activate it - does one exist and how to enable it? No, there's no preference to ask for the non-capped algorithm.
Yes there is a preference, but it's a bit hard to find: Preferences > General > Compare/Patch > Tab: Text Compare > Disable capping when comparing large documents
(In reply to Markus Keller from comment #19) > Yes there is a preference, but it's a bit hard to find: Indeed. I added a keyword now, so that it's a bit easier to find.
@Dani - just curious what keyword and is it used in the search preferences dialog box?
(In reply to Daniel Sokolowski from comment #21) > @Dani - just curious what keyword and is it used in the search preferences > dialog box? Yes, while typing "capping" it will find the page, i.e. it will also find it when you enter "cap".
Filed bug 447565 with a patch that adds a context menu to the capping message.
