git/progress.h

#ifndef PROGRESS_H
#define PROGRESS_H

struct progress;

void display_throughput(struct progress *progress, uint64_t total);
void display_progress(struct progress *progress, uint64_t n);
struct progress *start_progress(const char *title, uint64_t total);
struct progress *start_sparse_progress(const char *title, uint64_t total);
struct progress *start_delayed_progress(const char *title, uint64_t total);
struct progress *start_delayed_sparse_progress(const char *title,
					       uint64_t total);
void stop_progress(struct progress **progress);
void stop_progress_msg(struct progress **progress, const char *msg);

#endif
Make macros to prevent double-inclusion in headers consistent. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> 2007-04-29 06:38:52 +00:00			`#ifndef PROGRESS_H`
			`#define PROGRESS_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 18:27:45 +00:00
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 18:57:32 +00:00			`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 18:27:45 +00:00
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 20:15:58 +00:00			`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 00:45:36 +00:00			`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 20:15:58 +00:00			`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 19:36:11 +00:00			`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 20:15:58 +00:00			`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 19:36:11 +00:00			`struct progress start_delayed_sparse_progress(const char title,`
			`uint64_t total);`
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 18:57:32 +00:00			`void stop_progress(struct progress **progress);`
nicer display of thin pack completion In the same spirit of prettifying Git's output display for mere mortals, here's a simple extension to the progress API allowing for a final message to be provided when terminating a progress line, and use it for the display of the number of objects needed to complete a thin pack, saving yet one more line of screen display. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 2007-11-08 20:45:41 +00:00			`void stop_progress_msg(struct progress *progress, const char msg);`
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 18:27:45 +00:00
			`#endif`