Bug 65813 - [Progress] Need to protect against worked() on indeterminate monitors
Summary: [Progress] Need to protect against worked() on indeterminate monitors
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P4 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Tod Creasey CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: polish
: 65916 66503 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-06-04 16:37 EDT by Michael Valenta CLA
Modified: 2006-04-07 11:38 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Valenta CLA 2004-06-04 16:37:58 EDT 
If I run a synchronize on a large number of incoming changes as obtained 
fixing bug 45390 (may happen for a small number too), I ended up seeing a 
negative percentage in the status line. The cause of the problem is the 
following combination:

1) The sync job is incluced in a group with a background event handler.
2) The background event handler uses a progress type of UNKNOWN
3) When a worked() comes in, the TaskInfo for the background handler divides 
by -1 (the default task length) which results in a negative percentage.
Comment 1 Michael Valenta CLA 2004-06-06 21:43:02 EDT 
*** Bug 65916 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-06-07 15:38:19 EDT 
This is pretty important
Comment 3 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-06-08 07:42:55 EDT 
This is easy to replicate with the jobs example by creating 3 jobs with 
indeterminate progress in a group
Comment 4 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-06-08 07:57:39 EDT 
Michael are you calling worked() on a indeterminate progress monitor?
Comment 5 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-06-08 10:56:31 EDT 
I have updated TaskInfo to no longer take work increments when the progress is 
indeterminate. This has the side effect of having 0 progress if you beginTask 
on a sub monitor with something with infinite progress.

We should revisit this post 3.0 so I will mark it as such.
Comment 6 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-06-09 11:48:14 EDT 
*** Bug 64908 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Tod Creasey CLA 2004-06-09 12:12:32 EDT 
Verified in 20040609
Comment 8 Jean-Michel Lemieux CLA 2004-06-10 22:07:18 EDT 
*** Bug 66503 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 9 Michael Van Meekeren CLA 2006-03-21 17:15:21 EST 
Tod you verified this bug at one point, should we mark as fixed?
Comment 10 Tod Creasey CLA 2006-03-21 20:07:44 EST 
I would prefer to have a test case to verify this before we did.
Comment 11 Tod Creasey CLA 2006-04-07 11:38:22 EDT 
Marking as FIXED as I have already verified it