-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
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 repl output window performance #2011
Open
julienvincent
wants to merge
3
commits into
BetterThanTomorrow:dev
Choose a base branch
from
julienvincent:feature/repl-output-performance
base: dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
It's generally not the number of lines that is the problem, rather the number of tokens on the top level, or in a sexpr. A way to count tokens on the top level is to count words when printing output. That will introduce state that can be tricky to manage, though...
1000 lines is very low. It could be some 50 evaluations of not too big structures. This would be completely non-problematic for Calva to handle. While printing 1000 lines of output with 100 words each might start to be problematic (I actually don't know where the problems start.)
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.
While this makes sense, I don't think the additional complexity needed to implement this is really worth it. My assumption is that counting lines is a close-enough analogy in the average case for this to probably be sufficient. Especially if we make sure the threshold is high enough for the user to not care about the truncation.
This value was chosen pretty arbitrary, I'd be happy to increase it to a degree. While working on this I started to see noticeable performance degradation after about 10k lines of stack-trace content (I was printing Exceptions to stdout) so I don't think it should be increased too much. Maybe 5k lines?
I also think it's unlikely that a user would really be scrolling that far back in the repl history too often for us to need to worry about truncating after a few thousand lines.
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.
Unlikely, maybe, but I know of a user who does this all the time. 😄 I search the file rather than scroll, but anyway. (I keep tons of browser tabs open as well.) To me it makes sense to disable this limit feature (by setting limit to 0, e.g.) and to have that as default.
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.
Hey @julienvincent, thanks for taking time to look into this.
I think deleting at an arbitrary line length will cause unbalanced forms and break syntax highlighting and maybe also formatting, unless I'm missing something. If I'm not though, I don't think that's really an option.
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.
I'm happy with that too.
It does break highlighting but in a localised way (only the broken form will be colored incorrectly). The rest of the file maintains the correct highlighting. I think this is an probably an acceptable behaviour.
Which formatting do you mean? I haven't noticed anything obviously wrong.
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.
Here can see what I mean
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.
The way the structural editor works, when there is broken balance in the document, all bets are off. It will sometimes seem to work (or even work), but in many cases the structural editor is broken and with that a lot of Calva functionality that depends on this.
If we limit on lines, it will have to do it such that the balance is never broken. There are some ways to do this, I can think of two right now:
That said, I think we could also consider popping up a warning when the line limit is reached, instead of enforcing the limit. The warning can have a button for clearing the window.
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.
Yeah, I'd say that, in particular, is acceptable too.
By formatting I meant if someone is typing code in the repl window, the auto-formatting could/would be broken if there's an unbalanced form (which Peter mentioned above - structural editing). And as he said other functionality may be broken too in that case.