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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Add a progress indicator for cargo clean #10236

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 10, 2022
Merged

Add a progress indicator for cargo clean #10236

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4d46ffb
Add a progress indicator for cargo clean
theo-lw Dec 28, 2021
9ab86fc
Print the bar in verbose mode, keep count of the number of cleaned files
theo-lw Dec 29, 2021
3e1a8ba
Remove borow
theo-lw Jan 5, 2022
9b39df9
Remove borrow
theo-lw Jan 5, 2022
60cfe7e
Dyn instead of impl
theo-lw Jan 5, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
31 changes: 27 additions & 4 deletions src/cargo/ops/cargo_clean.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ use crate::ops;
use crate::util::errors::CargoResult;
use crate::util::interning::InternedString;
use crate::util::lev_distance;
use crate::util::Config;
use crate::util::{Config, Progress, ProgressStyle};

use anyhow::Context as _;
use cargo_util::paths;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -33,8 +33,9 @@ pub fn clean(ws: &Workspace<'_>, opts: &CleanOptions<'_>) -> CargoResult<()> {

// If the doc option is set, we just want to delete the doc directory.
if opts.doc {
let mut progress = Progress::with_style("Cleaning", ProgressStyle::Percentage, config);
target_dir = target_dir.join("doc");
return rm_rf(&target_dir.into_path_unlocked(), config);
return rm_rf_with_progress(&target_dir.into_path_unlocked(), &mut progress);
}

let profiles = Profiles::new(ws, opts.requested_profile)?;
Expand All @@ -53,7 +54,8 @@ pub fn clean(ws: &Workspace<'_>, opts: &CleanOptions<'_>) -> CargoResult<()> {
// Note that we don't bother grabbing a lock here as we're just going to
// blow it all away anyway.
if opts.spec.is_empty() {
return rm_rf(&target_dir.into_path_unlocked(), config);
let mut progress = Progress::with_style("Cleaning", ProgressStyle::Percentage, config);
return rm_rf_with_progress(&target_dir.into_path_unlocked(), &mut progress);
}

// Clean specific packages.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -133,8 +135,10 @@ pub fn clean(ws: &Workspace<'_>, opts: &CleanOptions<'_>) -> CargoResult<()> {
}
let packages = pkg_set.get_many(pkg_ids)?;

for pkg in packages {
let mut progress = Progress::with_style("Cleaning", ProgressStyle::Ratio, config);
for (pkg_idx, pkg) in packages.iter().enumerate() {
let pkg_dir = format!("{}-*", pkg.name());
progress.tick_now(pkg_idx + 1, packages.len(), &format!(": {}", pkg.name()))?;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What if there is a package with lots of artifacts? I feel like it would still look like "get stuck"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would. I added a message listing of the # of files/folders cleaned so users can see that it isn't stuck.


// Clean fingerprints.
for (_, layout) in &layouts_with_host {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -231,6 +235,25 @@ fn rm_rf_glob(pattern: &Path, config: &Config) -> CargoResult<()> {
Ok(())
}

fn rm_rf_with_progress(path: &Path, progress: &mut Progress<'_>) -> CargoResult<()> {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

NIT: Feel like progress can be a part of function body instead of a parameter.

let num_paths = walkdir::WalkDir::new(path).into_iter().count();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This naively seems like it would have a large impact and slow things down because we have to walk everything before actually removing everything. I don't have a great sense for the practical impact of this though.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

An alternative to this I think would be to perform the walk once, collect a list of all paths to remove, then remove them all in a loop. That would mean we only have to walk once and should be similar in performance I think.

for (idx, entry) in walkdir::WalkDir::new(path)
.contents_first(true)
.into_iter()
.enumerate()
{
progress.tick(std::cmp::min(idx + 1, num_paths), num_paths, "")?;
if let Ok(entry) = entry {
if entry.file_type().is_dir() {
paths::remove_dir(entry.path())?;
} else {
paths::remove_file(entry.path())?;
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure but maybe keep the verbose Removing ... as what fn rm_rf does? Though it only displays Removing /path/to/target-dir

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, updated so the verbose Removing ... is kept.

}
}
Ok(())
}

fn rm_rf(path: &Path, config: &Config) -> CargoResult<()> {
let m = fs::symlink_metadata(path);
if m.as_ref().map(|s| s.is_dir()).unwrap_or(false) {
Expand Down