You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
but it can't always assume that vectors is sized. Maybe a runtime check to see if *vectors* has a known length and providing it to the progress bar if known would be best
Hi @olirice, I’d like to work on this if it is still relevant.
To keep the first PR focused, I propose adding optional progress reporting to Collection.upsert:
Preserve the existing behavior by default.
Display a known total when the input implements Sized.
Support generators and other unsized iterables without consuming them in advance.
Ensure the progress display works in both terminal and notebook environments.
Add tests for enabled, disabled, sized, and unsized inputs while maintaining 100% coverage.
Update the relevant documentation in the existing style.
Would you be open to an initial PR scoped to Collection.upsert, with create_index handled separately? Also, is there a preferred progress-bar library, or should the implementation avoid adding a required dependency?
@marcosbeta23 sorry, I missed your comment before opening #118. You asked first, and your scope is exactly what I ended up building (opt-in flag on upsert, Sized total or indeterminate bar, tqdm.auto, optional extra, tests for the four cases).
Happy either way: I can close #118 so you take it from your own branch, or you're welcome to build on it, review it, or take it over directly and I'll add you as a co-author. Whatever @olirice prefers.
Hi @srijanarya, no worries at all! I appreciate the apology, these things happen in open source when issues are active.Since you've already built out the exact scope I proposed, let's definitely team up on it. I'd love to review your PR (#118) and collaborate with you there. Once we ensure everything is good to go, adding me as a co-author sounds like a great plan.
Activity
[-]Feature Request: Progress bars[/-][+]Feature Request: Progress Bars[/+]sahusiddharth commentedon Dec 31, 2023
@olirice I would like to work on it.
can please point me to contributing guideline for this repo I was find it
olirice commentedon Jan 2, 2024
great!
we don't have official contributing guidelines
Broadly you'll need
setup a virtualenv
install the pre-commit hooks
at that point you should be able to run
and have it pass. Note: on the first run a docker container will be spinning up so it could take a couple minutes. After that It'll be much faster.
We have 100% code coverage as a requirement so any new lines/functions must be covered. You can check if what you introduce is covered using
to generate a report, followed by
to see the coverage report
all new functions/methods should conform to the current documentation style
let me know if you have any trouble
marcosbeta23 commentedon Sep 3, 2026
Hi @olirice, I’d like to work on this if it is still relevant.
To keep the first PR focused, I propose adding optional progress reporting to
Collection.upsert:Sized.Would you be open to an initial PR scoped to
Collection.upsert, withcreate_indexhandled separately? Also, is there a preferred progress-bar library, or should the implementation avoid adding a required dependency?srijanarya commentedon Sep 5, 2026
Picked this up, scoped to
upsertas discussed here: #118.create_indexprogress left for a follow-up.srijanarya commentedon Sep 5, 2026
@marcosbeta23 sorry, I missed your comment before opening #118. You asked first, and your scope is exactly what I ended up building (opt-in flag on
upsert,Sizedtotal or indeterminate bar,tqdm.auto, optional extra, tests for the four cases).Happy either way: I can close #118 so you take it from your own branch, or you're welcome to build on it, review it, or take it over directly and I'll add you as a co-author. Whatever @olirice prefers.
marcosbeta23 commentedon Sep 8, 2026
Hi @srijanarya, no worries at all! I appreciate the apology, these things happen in open source when issues are active.Since you've already built out the exact scope I proposed, let's definitely team up on it. I'd love to review your PR (#118) and collaborate with you there. Once we ensure everything is good to go, adding me as a co-author sounds like a great plan.