Background Jobs

[nas8e9]

1.
I see various reasons why a user would pause a queue. One of them mentioned by jacky lately: if you made a mistake, or you are unsure whether you made a mistake, you halt things a have all the time look, and if necessary skip jobs.
Another usage is to set pause right from the beginning and then add jobs to the paused queue. When your queue is to your liking, you unpause and go for a cup of coffee while the machine is working.
If parallel jobs are excluded from the pause (which I will code in the next 5 minutes) you can still start a quick background job (with "queue file ops" OFF) while your paused queue is not affected. Nice.

BTW, pausing jobs in progress will only be possible in XYcopy 2.0.

Thank you for explaining the possible uses of pausing the queue. One thing I wonder about is that it's currently possible to skip queued jobs but not to delete them.

Code: Select all

    v9.00.0206 - 2010-04-28 15:46
        + Background Jobs: Now you can skip pending jobs via the job's
          context menu ("Skip Job"). The job will not be started as long as
          it is skipped.
          You can unskip a job at any point in time.
          - If jobs are in progress while you unskip a job then it will be
            started whenever it turn comes.
          - If all jobs are completed and only skipped jobs are left in the
            list then you are prompted whether to start the job now. On OK
            the job is immediately started. On Cancel the job will be
            started whenever you initiate the next background job; this is
            because always the whole job list is scanned for jobs that need
            to be completed, and the unskipped job will be started before
            the job you just initiated because it comes earlier in the list.

Going by the above from the change log, skipped jobs will still be started whenever a new background job is initiated; if that skipped job is incorrect, this would seem awkward. One of jacky's questions concerned the removal of incorrectly started jobs; I'd second that request.

[admin]

1.
I see various reasons why a user would pause a queue. One of them mentioned by jacky lately: if you made a mistake, or you are unsure whether you made a mistake, you halt things a have all the time look, and if necessary skip jobs.
Another usage is to set pause right from the beginning and then add jobs to the paused queue. When your queue is to your liking, you unpause and go for a cup of coffee while the machine is working.
If parallel jobs are excluded from the pause (which I will code in the next 5 minutes) you can still start a quick background job (with "queue file ops" OFF) while your paused queue is not affected. Nice.

BTW, pausing jobs in progress will only be possible in XYcopy 2.0.

Thank you for explaining the possible uses of pausing the queue. One thing I wonder about is that it's currently possible to skip queued jobs but not to delete them.

Code: Select all

    v9.00.0206 - 2010-04-28 15:46
        + Background Jobs: Now you can skip pending jobs via the job's
          context menu ("Skip Job"). The job will not be started as long as
          it is skipped.
          You can unskip a job at any point in time.
          - If jobs are in progress while you unskip a job then it will be
            started whenever it turn comes.
          - If all jobs are completed and only skipped jobs are left in the
            list then you are prompted whether to start the job now. On OK
            the job is immediately started. On Cancel the job will be
            started whenever you initiate the next background job; this is
            because always the whole job list is scanned for jobs that need
            to be completed, and the unskipped job will be started before
            the job you just initiated because it comes earlier in the list.

Going by the above from the change log, skipped jobs will still be started whenever a new background job is initiated; if that skipped job is incorrect, this would seem awkward. One of jacky's questions concerned the removal of incorrectly started jobs; I'd second that request.

No, that's a misunderstanding. A skipped job is never executed. They part you quoted was logically subordinated to the line "You can unskip a job at any point in time." and is about skipped jobs that now are unskipped.

So there is no need to delete a job. Skip is enough.

[admin]

"Delay Pending Jobs"/"Continue delayed Jobs"

?

Thanks, but I now think simply "Pause Queue" / "Continue Queue" will do nicely. And allows me to keep the "pause" icon.

[nas8e9]

No, that's a misunderstanding. A skipped job is never executed. They part you quoted was logically subordinated to the line "You can unskip a job at any point in time." and is about skipped jobs that now are unskipped.

So there is no need to delete a job. Skip is enough.

Somehow I feel like on a Monday morning rather than a Thursday...

I do wonder whether enabling (not yet started) jobs to be deleted or at least enabling skipped jobs to be hidden from view, would be worthwhile: it would make for a less cluttered list allowing a better overview.

[admin]

No, that's a misunderstanding. A skipped job is never executed. They part you quoted was logically subordinated to the line "You can unskip a job at any point in time." and is about skipped jobs that now are unskipped.

So there is no need to delete a job. Skip is enough.

Somehow I feel like on a Monday morning rather than a Thursday...

I do wonder whether enabling (not yet started) jobs to be deleted or at least enabling skipped jobs to be hidden from view, would be worthwhile: it would make for a less cluttered list allowing a better overview.

Good idea. I would not like to add an extra checkbox so I will subsume it under "hide completed". Hmm?

[zer0]

Good idea. I would not like to add an extra checkbox so I will subsume it under "hide completed". Hmm?

Yep. Just calling it "Hide completed/skipped" should do fine. I also think that auto-updating of the queue should happen by default -- no need for a checkbox then -- and "<" sign should be substituted with word "less than".

[admin]

Good idea. I would not like to add an extra checkbox so I will subsume it under "hide completed". Hmm?

Yep. Just calling it "Hide completed/skipped" should do fine. I also think that auto-updating of the queue should happen by default -- no need for a checkbox then -- and "<" sign should be substituted with word "less than".

"less than" is good. Not totally sure about auto-updating.

[admin]

BTW, I'm not so sure about the Pause/Continue button anymore. The checkbox has the advantage to clearer show the current state. A toggle button in inherently confusing because the caption says the opposite of the current state.

[jacky]

Another usage is to set pause right from the beginning and then add jobs to the paused queue. When your queue is to your liking, you unpause and go for a cup of coffee while the machine is working.

Yeah, and do you know how better it'd be if one could re-order the queue of pending jobs?

If parallel jobs are excluded from the pause (which I will code in the next 5 minutes) you can still start a quick background job (with "queue file ops" OFF) while your paused queue is not affected. Nice.

I guess. I'm not so sure I like that though. I mean, with re-ordering one could just add a job, move it on top and unpause just long enough to get that one job running.
OTOH the background bar refers to, as the title of the window says, "Background Jobs". Not queued, background. So it would seem logical that if the icon shows a paused state, background jobs are pause, not just queued ones.

Admittedly, this isn't so much about the feature itself rather than the GUI, but wouldn't that be somewhat confusing/misleading? To have an icon (Background Bar) that clearly relates to Background Jobs, except for that one state (paused) ?
After all, it gets to the "busy" state not when there is one queue job running, but when there is one background job running, whether or not it was queued.

Again, I'm not saying the choice for how things should work is wrong, but the GUI part might be. Maybe it shouldn't be a "pause" icon, just same as the ready one, expect not in green but in blue or with a little pause overlay in the corner or something, to indicated that background jobs are ready to be initiated/added, only queued ones won't be started for now.

And to be a complete PITA, said icon (bg bar) should be grayed out when bg processing is disabled, otherwise it is, again, misleading.

Also, I found a related bug: after I showed the window "Details" for a job, if I then go to Config|File Operations and click on "Apply to" (for background processing) the window :
- isn't properly sized, I mean I only see 3 of the 5 items on list.
- uses the same "header" from last-shown Details, so right now it tells me "Completed 23:42 minutes ago after..."
- also, now I see where those Ok/Cancel button came from

[nas8e9]

Good idea. I would not like to add an extra checkbox so I will subsume it under "hide completed". Hmm?

Yep. Just calling it "Hide completed/skipped" should do fine. I also think that auto-updating of the queue should happen by default -- no need for a checkbox then -- and "<" sign should be substituted with word "less than".

"less than" is good. Not totally sure about auto-updating.

"Hide completed/skipped" would be fine with me. I'd personally always leave auto-updating on; do you see circumstances where users would want to turn this off?

BTW, I'm not so sure about the Pause/Continue button anymore. The checkbox has the advantage to clearer show the current state. A toggle button in inherently confusing because the caption says the opposite of the current state.

I think the checkbox would be clearer with one caveat: I tend to think of checkboxes as a way of changing settings whereas buttons perform actions. OTOH, having both a checkbox to display the status *and* a button to perform the action of pausing/resuming seems like overkill. In other words, not sure.

[admin]

Another usage is to set pause right from the beginning and then add jobs to the paused queue. When your queue is to your liking, you unpause and go for a cup of coffee while the machine is working.

Yeah, and do you know how better it'd be if one could re-order the queue of pending jobs?

If parallel jobs are excluded from the pause (which I will code in the next 5 minutes) you can still start a quick background job (with "queue file ops" OFF) while your paused queue is not affected. Nice.

I guess. I'm not so sure I like that though. I mean, with re-ordering one could just add a job, move it on top and unpause just long enough to get that one job running.
OTOH the background bar refers to, as the title of the window says, "Background Jobs". Not queued, background. So it would seem logical that if the icon shows a paused state, background jobs are pause, not just queued ones.

Admittedly, this isn't so much about the feature itself rather than the GUI, but wouldn't that be somewhat confusing/misleading? To have an icon (Background Bar) that clearly relates to Background Jobs, except for that one state (paused) ?
After all, it gets to the "busy" state not when there is one queue job running, but when there is one background job running, whether or not it was queued.

Again, I'm not saying the choice for how things should work is wrong, but the GUI part might be. Maybe it shouldn't be a "pause" icon, just same as the ready one, expect not in green but in blue or with a little pause overlay in the corner or something, to indicated that background jobs are ready to be initiated/added, only queued ones won't be started for now.

And to be a complete PITA, said icon (bg bar) should be grayed out when bg processing is disabled, otherwise it is, again, misleading.

Also, I found a related bug: after I showed the window "Details" for a job, if I then go to Config|File Operations and click on "Apply to" (for background processing) the window :
- isn't properly sized, I mean I only see 3 of the 5 items on list.
- uses the same "header" from last-shown Details, so right now it tells me "Completed 23:42 minutes ago after..."
- also, now I see where those Ok/Cancel button came from

1.
Yes, it's slightly confusing, but I'm quite sure (as you are as well) that the feature/logic is ok, and that if at all the GUI has to be improved. I think about it...

2.
I think it's ok -- (of course you are right, but) -- disabling the button would imply you cannot press it, but you should always be able to press it, even if BP is off.


3.
"Apply to" bug. Thanks.

[admin]

I'd personally always leave auto-updating on; do you see circumstances where users would want to turn this off?

Somebody might be distracted by the seconds ticking away... dunno...

[jacky]

Yes, it's slightly confusing, but I'm quite sure (as you are as well) that the feature/logic is ok, and that if at all the GUI has to be improved. I think about it...

I'm thinking to keep the green check icon, but add a little pause icon as overlay might be a good "compromise". It convey both background job ready & paused state for the queue...

I think it's ok -- (of course you are right, but) -- disabling the button would imply you cannot press it, but you should always be able to press it, even if BP is off.

Well, doesn't have to. You could make it gray(ed out) while still clickable. (After all we can right-click (ok, not entirely the same) on disabled TB buttons just fine.) (You can even say it's not gray at all, it's a colored icon that says not used).

[nas8e9]

I'd personally always leave auto-updating on; do you see circumstances where users would want to turn this off?

Somebody might be distracted by the seconds ticking away... dunno...

Perhaps displaying only minutes with "less than a minute" displayed as such?

[admin]

Yes, it's slightly confusing, but I'm quite sure (as you are as well) that the feature/logic is ok, and that if at all the GUI has to be improved. I think about it...

I'm thinking to keep the green check icon, but add a little pause icon as overlay might be a good "compromise". It convey both background job ready & paused state for the queue...

Actually this morning I have added pause overlays to the BJ list itself. So that would be kind of in line with the style, only the the BB icon is smaller so the overlay must be tiny... I don't think that looks good....