From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A8F1FF15C
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:20:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D24A733804;
Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <2732d922-8d1c-4483-9a01-43bfcb00b7f5@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:19:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250318090900.725706-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<c8235584-6863-4021-b0dc-b36dd9bcc52c@proxmox.com>
<37855440-f4af-45ce-a7ac-781bb0151ed1@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-GB, de-AT
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Autocrypt: addr=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com; keydata=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 DrEx
In-Reply-To: <37855440-f4af-45ce-a7ac-781bb0151ed1@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.038 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [mozilla.org]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] fix #6223: fit terminal after 'OK' message
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Am 26.03.25 um 09:11 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> On 3/25/25 19:44, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> Am 18.03.25 um 10:09 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>>> instead of simply waiting 250ms after we send the credentials, wait
>>> until after the server responded with 'OK' to fit the terminal size.
>>> Still keep the timeout to not do that in the onmessage handler itself,
>>> but rather at a later point in time.
>>
>> potential dumb question, but what's the reason to keep the 250ms in
>> that case?
>
> not a dumb question at all, and you're right: the exact value of 250ms is strictly not necessary.
> I wanted to keep the code in a timeout, so it does not block the 'onmessage' handler,
> but rather that it runs later when the browser has idle cycles.
>
> We could of course reduce the timeout, but in my experience, sometimes browsers behave unexpected
> when it's too short (e.g., it then runs immediatly after the JS code, without a render cycle in
> between, which is what i want to avoid here)
any reference for that, especially w.r.t. unexpected behavior, as that
rather just sounds like expected behavior as nothing in the setTimeout
function is designed for being able to order with (re)paint events.
>
> In practice, omitting the timeout here would naturally work too here, but possibly delay the content
> of the terminal in favor of resizing.
I mean, lowering to something between 20 an 50 ms would be IMO a better
heuristic with less latency, as if the tab is active repaints will happen
at display rate if anything changes and assuming 50 Hz (20 ms period) as
lower bound seems OK, if we want to play it safe then 50 ms would be OK
to.
Alternatively, if what you actually want is to wait one paint we could also
use requestAnimationFrame [0] for that, e.g. something like the following
// wait at least one or more frames
function callbackAfterRepaint(callbackFn) {
let firstTimestamp;
let wrapperFn;
wrapperFn = timestamp => {
if (firstTimestamp === undefined) {
firstTimestamp = timestamp;
requestAnimationFrame(wrapperFn);
} else if (firstTimestamp === timestamp) {
requestAnimationFrame(wrapperFn);
} else {
callbackFn();
}
};
requestAnimationFrame(wrapperFn);
}
I think comparing the timestamp isn't even a requirement, as nesting this
will lead to two calls for separate frames, but that would need checking
more closely. And the time comparison was based on the following docs:
> When multiple callbacks queued by requestAnimationFrame() begin to fire
> in a single frame, each receives the same timestamp even though time has
> passed during the computation of every previous callback's workload.
But again, probably not required as requisting an animation frame from
inside the callback allways gives the next one already anyway.
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/requestAnimationFrame
Using requestAnimationFrame is not a must, I just stumbled upon this again
and wanted to try it, and it feels a bit nicer than waiting some arbitrary
amount if letting pass at least one paint cycle is the goal; I can also
apply as is and just lower the wait period to 50 ms, just tell me what you
think after reading this.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel