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.

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

Auto-Saving Data: Triggering Saves Only on Data Changes #9283

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

N-thony
Copy link
Collaborator

@N-thony N-thony commented Nov 28, 2024

Fixes #9236
@rdstern I hope this fixes what you have suggested in issue #9236. Have a look.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rdstern rdstern left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@N-thony delighted to see the change. But this backing up information - if true shows a problem at the start, with many macking up in the first 2 minutes!
Log for backing up.zip

@rdstern
Copy link
Collaborator

rdstern commented Nov 28, 2024

@N-thony it is odd now in a different way. It says backup at the start, (at the bottom) when I think it is checking about undo instead. And now you have taken the notification in the log file away it seems? At least it never eregistered any more, and I was deliberately making changes?

@rdstern
Copy link
Collaborator

rdstern commented Dec 3, 2024

@N-thony I am getting nervous now, on what we are trying to achieve here. And I'm worried we might be regressing as we make a change. Here is the log file I just loaded, which looks really odd still:

image

I suggest was abandon this for now and return in January where we try for the full change, namely to only backup a data frame, when something has changed there.

I don't want to get into details of which commands change the "data", because almost all the commands/dialogs have an option to change the metadata.

And I start to worry about how the backing up is supposed to work when we are using scripts as well as dialogs.

@N-thony
Copy link
Collaborator Author

N-thony commented Dec 3, 2024

@N-thony I am getting nervous now, on what we are trying to achieve here. And I'm worried we might be regressing as we make a change. Here is the log file I just loaded, which looks really odd still:

image

I suggest was abandon this for now and return in January where we try for the full change, namely to only backup a data frame, when something has changed there.

I don't want to get into details of which commands change the "data", because almost all the commands/dialogs have an option to change the metadata.

And I start to worry about how the backing up is supposed to work when we are using scripts as well as dialogs.

@rdstern, this is exactly what I was suggestion on Skype.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Why do we repeat our backing up in R-Instat if nothing has changed in the log file?
2 participants