Modeling Algorithms - Implementation of progress feedback in pave filler

Both patches needed.

Branch [archived branch] has been created by Participant.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Mon Jan 12 16:40:00 2015 +0100

    0025698: Implementation of progress feedback in pave filler

Dear pkv, please review the branch CR25698.

1. Replace the pieces of code
...
 if (!myProgressIndicator.IsNull()) {
    myProgressIndicator->NewScope(100.0);
    myProgressIndicator->SetStep(100.0 / 16.0);
  }
,,,
if (!myProgressIndicator.IsNull()) {
    myProgressIndicator->Increment();
  }
...
 if (!myProgressIndicator.IsNull()) {
    myProgressIndicator->Increment();
    myProgressIndicator->EndScope();
  }
 ...
by methods that control the indicator. Say,

BOPAlgo_PaveFiller::IndicatorStart ()
BOPAlgo_PaveFiller::IndicatorIncrement ()
BOPAlgo_PaveFiller::IndicatorStop ().

Place the methods in a separate file [say BOPAlgo_PaveFiller_11.cxx]
The reasons:
- keep the one functionality in one place is easy to maintain and modify
- keep the control program out of details

2. Why the steps
 myDS->UpdatePaveBlocks(); RefineFaceInfoOn();
are out of IndicatorIncrement ()

3. Why the all steps have equal complexity?
The complexity of a step depends on data.
It would be nice to have the analysis of data inside the code.
The analysis will allow to distribute the complexity of steps more correctly

4. It will be good to have a test command and several test cases
to see how it works. These tools are absolutely necessary to identify
the problems associated with Progress Indicator in context of
BOPAlgo_PaveFiller:
- The Draw command is needed.
- Steps To Reproduce is needed.
- Test cases are needed.

Dear pkv, I see that this task is not so simple as seemed. So, please, put it in your list of tasks.

The issue shall be reconsidered following integration of #0025748

This issue will be fixed with "21264 - Progress indicator for Boolean operations".

Please close this bug as duplicate of #21264.

Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Commenter 3.

[revision removed]