Skip to content

Loading…

No indication of purging when clicking on the "Purge all caches" button #999

Closed
Mikey1993 opened this Issue · 6 comments

3 participants

@Mikey1993

After clicking on the "Purge all caches" button:

1) It may be clicked more than once, leaving the user in a total disorientation.
2) No indication of the cleaning process as it was before (no 'disabled' effect of the page).

This seems to affect Firefox the most as it takes couple of seconds on my machine to purge all the caches.

Using FF Nightly v39, uBlock 0.9.0.1-dev.3

@Mikey1993 Mikey1993 changed the title from [Firefox] No indication of purging when clicking on the "Purge all caches" button to No indication of purging when clicking on the "Purge all caches" button
@gorhill

It's an instantaneous operation from my side. Test with an official release, I won' t fix such issue which may be only present on a bleeding edge dev version.

@gorhill

I tested with default filter lists... How many filter lists were selected before clicking "Purge all caches"?

@Betsy25

Using the very last dev commit on todays FF nightly, I can only click that button once, then it becomes disabled, and "Update Now" lights up, so cannot reproduce your problem (using commit gorhill/uBlock@d660604 )

@gorhill

I could cause the button to be disabled immediately upon click, but anything more than this would be overdoing it (indicator, etc.), as it is most likely an operation which completes in a fraction of second -- an indicator would be annoying visually to a majority of users.

@gorhill gorhill closed this in eafd038
@gorhill

Actually, I changed my mind trying it more, while trying to reproduce: I agree. With Chromium, there is a very slight delay (still, less than one second), but I can see how dimming the whole screen is preferable for those cases in which a longer delay occur, however uncommon. Trying it, I didn't really find the fraction of second whole-page dimming annoying.

@gorhill gorhill added a commit that referenced this issue
@gorhill gorhill this fixes #999 as per original request 210fb22
@Mikey1993

Much much better than before.
Thanks @gorhill

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.