-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
Lots of unmatched time when using a simple rule that should tag everything #129
Comments
Original comment by Konzertheld (Bitbucket: Konzertheld, GitHub: Konzertheld). Thanks for your answer. I tried a configuration file that contains nothing but the rule mentioned in the first sentence and used the same command mentioned above again, nothing changed. So, it’s not related to anything else in my config. Then I learned I should not use I then ran
I find it interesting that some do have a program associated and some do not. The first lines are from BigBlueButton, a video conference system, when I shared my screen (propably). I had hope that would explain a lot of the time as I worked as a lecturer and spent quite some time in that system. So I updated my test config to match most of the lines from my search. It reduced the amount of unmatched time by amazing 24 seconds, leaving 4 days and almost 10 hours. So, I still have no clue. :slight_smile: The lines that my grep search turned out are not too many, so I also have doubt those lines explain the problem at all. Edit: I missed the inactive tag clause in my test config. I added it. It only accounts for 2 hours of those 4+ days. (That way, I also confirmed that filtering out inactive time works.) |
Original comment by Konzertheld (Bitbucket: Konzertheld, GitHub: Konzertheld). Additional info from things I came up with today. An even simpler rule |
Original comment by nomeata (Bitbucket: nomeata, GitHub: nomeata). So the problem is that |
Thanks for the test data! When I look at
I see that quite a few samples don't have an active window (the So the question is why that happens. Maybe there are modal dialogs open that are not recognized by arbtt? Or maybe one of the used applications is somehow confusing arbtt? |
New approach: Are there known issues with Wayland? I saw that there is a wayland compatible port of arbtt-capture. My system uses Wayland. (Asking because today I again have 6h 50min uptime but only 6h 1min captured including inactive times) |
Or maybe arbtt-capture's wake up interval isn't precise enough? If arbtt-capture takes 1s, and you set the interval to 10s, if I did the sleep naively, it might explain 10% lost time. What's your interval time? |
(I don't use Wayland yet, and have no idea how arbtt will behave there) |
Hmm, my interval is 3 seconds. I can change it to 10 and see if it makes a difference. |
Ah, that might be an explanation. It shouldn’t be too hard to fix that, though. |
Ah well, if a fix is possible, that's even better. I use short intervals because I got quite a few captures of windows I accidentally alt-tabbed to which were then logged as whatever interval I had set instead of the 200 ms I actually focused them. With short intervals, those captures will disappear in irrelevance. |
My theory is that even with 60s interval, this will even out (you’ll catch them less often), but yes, depending on your needs and use cases this might be too imprecise. At the cost of a greatly increased log file, of course. |
Hmm, I'm trying to come up with a mathematical explanation but from my first thoughts, I think you're right. |
Update: It seems to decrease with increased intervals. I had 12 minutes leakage on 6 hours today with an interval of 10 seconds. |
#145 might improve the situation. Do you want to try it out? Can you build from a branch or need help with that? |
I can build from a branch. I thought I already did but I built master. Interestingly, it is extra bad today, almost a third of the time is lost. But I will try the branch now for the next few hours. |
Is this command correct? I get a weird output trying to check if the manually compiled version from the branch works at all.
Not only did it ignore the filter, the results are also completely wrong. |
This might be an old file, look at the time-stamp. Modern |
Nope, the directory did not exist before and the timestamp matches what I expected it to be. |
It was probably a bad idea that I just continued to use the old log file with no migration, right? |
Well, this is interesting. I tried a new logfile. It is already 27 MB large after not even five minutes. Processing takes way too long. While below, there are supposedly 4 days recorded, there are now 31 days recorded already. So either I messed up the build completely or something does not work at all.
Build commands were taken from the AUR package, I just removed those that write to system directories:
|
Hmm, maybe my changes on the branch are just broken. :-/. Will have to careful look at them again. |
Did you run multiple arbtt-capture instances at the same time maybe? |
no :) |
Original report by Konzertheld (Bitbucket: Konzertheld, GitHub: Konzertheld).
Hello there,
I have a simple rule in my configuration:
tag Program:$current.program
that should tag every entry. When I run statistics:arbtt-stats -c Program --for-each Month -m 0.1
I get a lot of unmatched time though. What could be happening?I use arbtt-stats version 0.10.4 on Manjaro Linux. Following is the entire categorizing file:
Thanks for reading and hopefully someone has an idea. Or maybe I found some bug, who knows. :slight_smile:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: