-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
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
feat: display status of sending request steps - INS-3635 #7382
Conversation
0d25008
to
8753e7b
Compare
c05f080
to
3afb742
Compare
f0c4f59
to
135544e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
feedback
- language is a bit unclear, visually we are looking at a single execution with many steps/phases
- timingrecord is unclear name, rename record to step/phase
- avoid try catch finally for control flow, replace with a clear begin and end process events
- post request script takes double the time taken that it should when i add a setTimeout
- endedAt is not a safe type to be setting to the number 0 because it is used as a date, better would be to make null or a duration rather than a timestamp
- isDone is duplicate data, since we can infer that if endedAt exists then it must be true.
- total time taken breakdown in hover?
50e495a
to
0bab121
Compare
Still todo fix bug where navigating away from a running request loses the loading state. below steps related:
|
29c46fe
to
8a51595
Compare
Couple changes left
|
509921f
to
747bbde
Compare
// only one observer is allowed for simplicity | ||
const executionObservers = new Map<string, TimingCallback>(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
current problem is we use this in three places so they overwrite each other and only one works. I've looked at making it an array but then we have a a few new problems. Wondering if theres a better way, I've looked at file watching the timeline and that has a couple new problems too. I'm sure theres a simpler way I'm just not seeing it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's see if there is a simple solution or I might propose to move forward with the main requirement firstly then move to changes after e592cab.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We moved it to main, in order to benefit from the ipc event emitter pattern. This way its consistent across all usages of the hook at open windows/instances.
Whats left is some tidying up of names to make it consistent, and some testing.
The big benefit of this approach is we can easily change the persistence layer later to use another state store like the timeline instead of the executions map.
Thanks @gatzjames for the ideas and support.
82a5dd5
to
0a65e7d
Compare
Changes
Ref: INS-3821, INS-3635