Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 344055 - [client] progress reporting doesn't survive page reload
Summary: [client] progress reporting doesn't survive page reload
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Orion
Classification: ECD
Component: Client (show other bugs)
Version: 0.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 7
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 0.4 M2   Edit
Assignee: Malgorzata Janczarska CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 344148
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2011-04-27 18:41 EDT by Susan McCourt CLA
Modified: 2012-01-31 13:21 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Susan McCourt CLA 2011-04-27 18:41:41 EDT 
If you have a long operation running and reload the page, you'll lose your progress message forever and won't know when the task is finished.

I could imagine a user deciding to follow a link to do some work while waiting, and if they don't open the link on a new page, they'll never get their progress back when they go back.

We should probably either
- establish ownership of tasks per page so that the page always knows what tasks its running, OR
- have a way to open a popup that shows what all running tasks are doing

Any solution we choose should also address bug 344012.
Comment 1 Susan McCourt CLA 2011-04-27 18:46:13 EDT 
John, is there a way on the server side to find out what tasks are running?  Or would we have to adopt some client-side storage approach to keep track of tasks?
Comment 2 John Arthorne CLA 2011-04-28 10:57:57 EDT 
There is currently no server call to find out what tasks are running (per user), but only because we haven't had a need for it yet. I can easily add that.
Comment 3 Susan McCourt CLA 2011-04-28 11:34:49 EDT 
(In reply to comment #2)
> There is currently no server call to find out what tasks are running (per
> user), but only because we haven't had a need for it yet. I can easily add
> that.

I opened bug 344148 for this.
Comment 4 Malgorzata Janczarska CLA 2012-01-23 05:03:13 EST 
I think this can be considered as done.