Closed
Bug 78605
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
display bytes [size] in Status when download is complete
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: File Handling, defect, P2)
Core Graveyard
File Handling
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.5beta
People
(Reporter: bugzilla, Assigned: Biesinger)
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
19.72 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
2.86 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
jag+mozilla
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
it would be useful to show the amount of bytes transferred [file size] when
download is finished. this info would appear in the Status field, along with the
total elapsed time.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
spam: over to File Handling. i have not changed the assigned developer [or the
other fields for that matter], so if anyone realizes that a bug should have a
more appropriate owner, go ahead and change it. :)
Component: XP Apps: GUI Features → File Handling
Reporter | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
QA Contact: sairuh → petersen
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
ok, I have a patch which makes the dialog look like this when the download is
finished
I'll attach the patch in a second
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•22 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
taking bug
Assignee: mscott → cbiesinger
Priority: -- → P2
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.4alpha
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #113950 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
![]() |
||
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 113950 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Do we want to report the size of the resulting file? Or the number of bytes we
actually got off the network (think streaming decompression and such)?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
Hmm. Note that comment 0 is not clear on this :)
I vote for the actual filesize, because this is easier to implement, and it's
what I guess users expect (Why did the dialog show 200 KB when the file is
actually 400 KB large?)
![]() |
||
Comment 7•22 years ago
|
||
On the other hand, as the download progresses we show bytes downloaded off the
network. So you'll see things like "200kb, 99%" and then "400 kb downloaded".
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•22 years ago
|
||
hmm, you could make an argument for both possibilities I guess.
I propose we make this a pref. *ducks*
just kidding.
I guess it is better to not suddenly jump to a much larger number, then. So I
would store the aCurTotalProgress from onProgressChange in a member variable and
use that in setCompleted?
![]() |
||
Comment 9•22 years ago
|
||
yeah, that may be better.... I'd try both and see how they look.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•22 years ago
|
||
all that just for a comparatively rare case...
Do you have an url which sends compressed data?
![]() |
||
Comment 11•22 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•22 years ago
|
||
And, er, is onProgressChange sometimes not called?
![]() |
||
Comment 13•22 years ago
|
||
No idea. I've never really figured out the whole progress notifications cabal.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•22 years ago
|
||
sigh... ok... on the url you mentioned, the content length is unknown. that
means that in the end, onProgressChange gets -1 for the progress (for all 4
progresses). which is of course not useful.
I'm more and more inclined to just stay with the attached patch.
![]() |
||
Comment 15•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 113950 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Sorry, no. We get the same problem with binhex files; there the content-length
off the server _is_ known and is _not_ equal to the filesize on disk.
As in, if we're going to add UI, let's do it in a way that won't get bugs filed
on it immediately...
Attachment #113950 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review-
![]() |
||
Comment 16•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 113950 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
I was wrong, it seems. This should be good.
Attachment #113950 -
Flags: review- → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #113950 -
Flags: superreview?(jaggernaut)
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Target Milestone: mozilla1.4alpha → mozilla1.5beta
Comment 17•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 113950 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
sr=jag
Attachment #113950 -
Flags: superreview?(jag) → superreview+
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•21 years ago
|
||
Checking in locale/en-US/nsProgressDialog.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/embedding/components/ui/progressDlg/locale/en-US/nsProgressDial
og.dtd,v <-- nsProgressDialog.dtd
new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•21 years ago
|
||
hm, cvs didn't check in the other file before... now done:
Checking in nsProgressDialog.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/embedding/components/ui/progressDlg/nsProgressDialog.js,v <--
nsProgressDialog.js
new revision: 1.31; previous revision: 1.30
done
Comment 20•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 113949 [details]
screenshot
Whose idea was it to duplicate the elapsed time?
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #20)
> (From update of attachment 113949 [details] [edit])
> Whose idea was it to duplicate the elapsed time?
that was not added by this patch. in fact, rev. 1.1 of that dtd already has the
elapsed time in this text, and presumably also has the separate elapsed time
display. I did not check further to find the earlier version of the file.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•