Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 62045 - [Progress] Progress indicator shows 0% while active job shows 51%
Summary: [Progress] Progress indicator shows 0% while active job shows 51%
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P2 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.0 RC1   Edit
Assignee: Tod Creasey CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-05-12 22:20 EDT by Nick Edgar CLA
Modified: 2004-05-31 10:47 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Nick Edgar CLA 2004-05-12 22:20:17 EDT
build I20040512-0800

- clicked the sync button in the sync view
- it started a sync
- pressed Run in Background
- did the same again
- in the progress view, it showed two sync jobs, but only one was active
- terminated the other one
- it did not get cleared from the list
- it also showed "Synchronizing: (0%) null"
- while the other job continued to make progress, the progress indicator at
bottom right kept showing 0%.
Comment 1 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-05-13 08:38:10 EDT
We choose the job we show based on priority - the idea of active job is based 
on prioity and user action. A job the user initiated is always considered more 
significant than one done automatically in the background.

Moving to Team to investigate

1) Starting the job at more than 0% to give the perception of progress
2) Making sure cancel is being checked enough as we will not update unless you 
cancel.

If there is a refresh problem in the view after the cancellation then please 
move this back.

I have logged Bug 62078 to get the sorting done better when a job is cancelled.
Comment 2 Nick Edgar CLA 2004-05-13 11:17:45 EDT
Note that both syncs were manually triggered.
Comment 3 Michael Valenta CLA 2004-05-14 15:20:37 EDT
Here is the behavior I am seeing:

- We have two synchronize jobs in the synchronize view. Just to be confusing, 
we synchronized a block within the run method to avoid having multiple 
synchronize jobs working concurrently. We can't use scheduling rules because 
we don't know which scheduling rules may be obtained within the job.

- The first job is running and the progress shows up in the progress view. The 
second job is running but is blocked until the first job completes so it is 
making no progress. However, the status bar is showing the progress from the 
blocked job and not the running job. The user initiated both jobs and they 
have the same priority.

I will investigate changing how we serialize these jobs since there are other 
negative side effects. However, the problem of showing the status from the 
wrong job still remains. I'm moving this back to UI as I should think that the 
status area should show the progress for the job that is running. 

To reproduce this, you will need to create two synchronize entries. You can do 
this by synchronizeing your Workspace and pinning that entry and then 
Synchronizing a selection or working set and pinning that entry. Selecting 
either from the toolbar dropdown will then launch a synchronize.



Comment 4 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-05-25 09:04:42 EDT
What we should see is if we can resort if something is blocked. John is there 
any way for me to know when a job is blocked on another one?
Comment 5 John Arthorne CLA 2004-05-25 11:08:58 EDT
Of course... you can use JobInfo.isBlocked() to find this out.
Comment 6 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-05-26 14:00:35 EDT
Added blocked state to the sort criteria in HEAD
Comment 7 Nick Edgar CLA 2004-05-26 14:16:02 EDT
Is there any notification of the change in blocked state so that the view can
re-sort?
Comment 8 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-05-26 14:32:38 EDT
The refresh in the progress region when the next tick happens will update it - 
not sure about the JobsView but I think it may do the same. 
Comment 9 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-05-31 10:47:25 EDT
Verified in 20040529