Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC: Show background fetch status in bottom line #4215

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

stefanhaller
Copy link
Collaborator

  • PR Description

RFC: Show background fetch status in bottom line

This shows a status as if the user had typed 'f' manually in the files panel.

I want this particularly for the first fetch after startup. There are often
situations where I need to wait for this first background fetch to be done
before I can do what I want (e.g. rebase my branch onto its base branch, or
check out a branch that my coworker has told me they just pushed), but currently
it's hard to tell when that is.

I'm not sure yet if the status for every subsequent background fetch after the
first one is distracting, and I would also be fine with only displaying it for
the initial one.

Or maybe we can come up with some other place in the UI that can show
background activities, that would also be fine with me. I don't have a good
idea myself where that could be though.

As far as I can tell, this is not needed. The call to Refresh at the end of
backgroundFetch takes care of redrawing after refreshing.

The call was added in 2fc1498, that's a long time ago, and we had multiple
big refactorings since then. Maybe it was needed back then but no longer is
today? Or maybe that commit sheds some light on why it was added.
This shows a status as if the user had typed 'f' manually in the files panel.

I want this particularly for the first fetch after startup. There are often
situations where I need to wait for this first background fetch to be done
before I can do what I want (e.g. rebase my branch onto its base branch, or
check out a branch that my coworker has told me they just pushed), but currently
it's hard to tell when that is.

I'm not sure yet if the status for every subsequent background fetch after the
first one is distracting, and I would also be fine with only displaying it for
the initial one.
@stefanhaller stefanhaller added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 26, 2025
Copy link

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
Report missing for 40d68001 0.00%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (40d6800) Report Missing Report Missing Report Missing
Head commit (abfea47) 52029 44988 86.47%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#4215) 3 0 0.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

Footnotes

  1. Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct.

@jesseduffield
Copy link
Owner

I quite like the idea of just showing it every time, because often it causes a slight delay in some action I want to perform and it would be good to actually see the reason why.

As for location, I'm fine with it at the bottom. It may be a little bit annoying for users who are hiding their bottom line (because it shows up again and slightly squashes the other panels when something is loading). We've got a separate issue for that here: #4189

@stefanhaller
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ok cool. Does that mean we can merge this as is (after rewording the commit message a bit)?

Did you see the change in the first commit? I'm not entirely sure about it, see commit message for details.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants