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

Jump to bottom

Feature Request: Solver Progress #224

Closed
Affie opened this issue Feb 19, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Feature Request: Solver Progress #224

Affie opened this issue Feb 19, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
feature request help wanted performance
Milestone
v0.7.x

Comments

@Affie
Copy link
Member

Affie commented Feb 19, 2019

Is it possible to get the approximate solver progress.
@dehann dehann mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2019
Merged
@dehann dehann added this to the v0.5.x milestone Feb 19, 2019
@dehann
Copy link
Member

dehann commented Feb 19, 2019

Yes, I think we could add progress meter for iterated solve during up and then also during down solve steps. We would have to track these two loops:

Note, however, that these two loops are asyncs, so the task completion needs to be tracked instead.

@dehann
Copy link
Member

dehann commented May 10, 2019

new state machine based solver will make this quite easy to do. Should happen in v0.6.x

@dehann
Copy link
Member

dehann commented May 10, 2019

see #273

@dehann dehann mentioned this issue May 10, 2019
Merged
@dehann dehann modified the milestones: v0.6.x, v0.7.x Jun 10, 2019
@dehann
Copy link
Member

dehann commented Jun 10, 2019

we can just count how many clique state machines have completed for progress bar.

@dehann
Copy link
Member

dehann commented Jul 14, 2019

Partially addressed via human interpretation of #349

@dehann dehann closed this as completed Nov 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
feature request help wanted performance
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v0.7.x
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@dehann @Affie