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

Improve accuracy timing #39

Open
dynasource opened this issue Aug 10, 2015 · 4 comments
Open

Improve accuracy timing #39

dynasource opened this issue Aug 10, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels
type:enhancement Enhancement

Comments

@dynasource
Copy link
Member

What is currently covered in the log of the toolbar is:

  • the lifecycle after loading the config files.

What is also useful is to provide an actual timeframe which corresponds with the total time displayed in the toolbar in which you get a accurate display of the total request. This requires a log of the:

  • start time of app
  • end time of app
@samdark samdark added the type:enhancement Enhancement label Aug 10, 2015
@cebe
Copy link
Member

cebe commented Aug 10, 2015

in the profiling tab we already have Total processing time: 82 ms. This is basically what you need, isn't it?

@dynasource
Copy link
Member Author

It would be logical to synchronize the log with the total processing time. What I am missing is the start & ending time.

My usecase is as follows: I actively use the Log to see how long different parts of the application take. For this I am effectively using a duration column for a while now (#40). But some points are missing. Because the start time isnt logged, I couldnt see the loadtime of the config files.

@dynasource
Copy link
Member Author

screenshot

Within this sceenshot, you can see time the application has actually started. IMHO, this was definately something that was missing. The same applies for loading config files.

@samdark
Copy link
Member

samdark commented Sep 3, 2015

Yep. That's interesting info to have.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type:enhancement Enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants