Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(378)

Unified Diff: components/offline_pages/background/request_picker.cc

Issue 2113383002: More detailed implementation of the RequestPicker (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master
Patch Set: Try a different way of checking policy to separate policy from checking. Created 4 years, 5 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
Index: components/offline_pages/background/request_picker.cc
diff --git a/components/offline_pages/background/request_picker.cc b/components/offline_pages/background/request_picker.cc
index 665b39fee53977fd875c138db8e3e7bbe4729b4f..7d87ad7bbbc54a0c9faa68e365981742b6549865 100644
--- a/components/offline_pages/background/request_picker.cc
+++ b/components/offline_pages/background/request_picker.cc
@@ -8,25 +8,44 @@
#include "base/logging.h"
#include "components/offline_pages/background/save_page_request.h"
+namespace {
+template <typename T>
+int signum(T t) {
+ return (T(0) < t) - (t < T(0));
+}
+
+#define CALL_MEMBER_FUNCTION(object,ptrToMember) ((object)->*(ptrToMember))
+} // namespace
+
namespace offline_pages {
RequestPicker::RequestPicker(
- RequestQueue* requestQueue)
+ RequestQueue* requestQueue, OfflinerPolicy* policy)
: queue_(requestQueue),
+ policy_(policy),
+ fewer_retries_better_(false),
+ earlier_requests_better_(false),
weak_ptr_factory_(this) {}
RequestPicker::~RequestPicker() {}
+// Entry point for the async operation to choose the next request.
void RequestPicker::ChooseNextRequest(
RequestCoordinator::RequestPickedCallback picked_callback,
- RequestCoordinator::RequestQueueEmptyCallback empty_callback) {
+ RequestCoordinator::RequestQueueEmptyCallback empty_callback,
+ DeviceConditions* device_conditions) {
picked_callback_ = picked_callback;
empty_callback_ = empty_callback;
+ fewer_retries_better_ = policy_->ShouldPreferUntriedRequests();
+ earlier_requests_better_ = policy_->ShouldPreferEarlierRequests();
+ current_conditions_.reset(new DeviceConditions(*device_conditions));
// Get all requests from queue (there is no filtering mechanism).
queue_->GetRequests(base::Bind(&RequestPicker::GetRequestResultCallback,
weak_ptr_factory_.GetWeakPtr()));
}
+// When we get contents from the queue, use them to pick the next
+// request to operate on (if any).
void RequestPicker::GetRequestResultCallback(
RequestQueue::GetRequestsResult,
const std::vector<SavePageRequest>& requests) {
@@ -37,11 +56,148 @@ void RequestPicker::GetRequestResultCallback(
}
// Pick the most deserving request for our conditions.
- const SavePageRequest& picked_request = requests[0];
+ const SavePageRequest* picked_request = nullptr;
+
+ RequestCompareFunction comparator = nullptr;
+
+ // Choose which comparison function to use based on policy.
+ if (policy_->RetryCountIsMoreImportantThanRecency()) {
+ comparator = &RequestPicker::RetryCountFirstCompareFunction;
+ }
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 I don't think you need either pair of {}
Pete Williamson 2016/07/21 19:48:45 Done. I misinterpreted our guidelines as anything
+ else {
+ comparator = &RequestPicker::RecencyFirstCompareFunction;
+ }
+
+ // Iterate once through the requests, keeping track of best candidate.
+ for (unsigned i = 0; i < requests.size(); ++i) {
+ if (!RequestConditionsSatisfied(requests[i]))
+ continue;
+ if (IsNewRequestBetter(picked_request, &(requests[i]), comparator))
+ picked_request = &(requests[i]);
+ }
+
+ // If we have a best request to try next, get the request coodinator to
+ // start it. Otherwise return that we have no candidates.
+ if (picked_request != nullptr) {
+ picked_callback_.Run(*picked_request);
+ } else {
+ empty_callback_.Run();
+ }
+}
+
+// Filter out requests that don't meet the current conditions. For instance, if
+// this is a predictive request, and we are not on WiFi, it should be ignored
+// this round.
+bool RequestPicker::RequestConditionsSatisfied(const SavePageRequest& request) {
+ // If the user did not request the page directly, make sure we are connected
+ // to power and have WiFi and sufficient battery remaining before we take this
+ // reqeust.
+ // TODO(petewil): We may later want to configure whether to allow 2G for non
+ // user_requested items, add that to policy.
+ if (!request.user_requested()) {
+ if (!current_conditions_->IsPowerConnected())
+ return false;
+
+ if (current_conditions_->GetNetConnectionType() !=
+ net::NetworkChangeNotifier::ConnectionType::CONNECTION_WIFI) {
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ if (current_conditions_->GetBatteryPercentage() <
+ policy_->GetMinimumBatteryPercentageForNonUserRequestOfflining()) {
+ return false;
+ }
+ }
+
+ // If we have already tried this page the max number of times, it is not
+ // eligible to try again.
+ // TODO(petewil): Instead, we should have code to remove the page from the
+ // queue after the last retry.
+ if (request.attempt_count() >= policy_->GetMaxRetries())
+ return false;
+
+ // If this request is not active yet, return false.
+ // TODO(petewil): If the only reason we return nothing to do is that we have
+ // inactive requests, we still want to try again later after their activation
+ // time elapses, we shouldn't take ourselves completely off the scheduler.
+ if (request.activation_time() > base::Time::Now())
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+// Look at policies to decide which requests to prefer.
+bool RequestPicker::IsNewRequestBetter(const SavePageRequest* oldRequest,
+ const SavePageRequest* newRequest,
+ RequestCompareFunction comparator) {
+
+ // If there is no old request, the new one is better.
+ if (oldRequest == nullptr)
+ return true;
+
+ // User requested pages get priority.
+ if (newRequest->user_requested() && !oldRequest->user_requested())
+ return true;
+
+ // Otherwise, use the comparison function for the current policy, which
+ // returns true if hte older request is better.
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 s/hte/the/
Pete Williamson 2016/07/21 19:48:45 Done.
+ return !(CALL_MEMBER_FUNCTION(this, comparator)(oldRequest, newRequest));
+}
+
+// Compare the results, checking request count before recency. Returns true if
+// left hand side is better, false otherwise.
+bool RequestPicker::RetryCountFirstCompareFunction(
+ const SavePageRequest* left, const SavePageRequest* right) {
+ // Check the attempt count.
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 Consider extracting the block from here to the fir
Pete Williamson 2016/07/21 19:48:45 After I thought about it, I prefer leaving the cod
fgorski 2016/07/22 16:02:11 I was thinking of 2 functions that are specific to
Pete Williamson 2016/07/22 16:25:53 Oh, that's different than what I thought you were
+ int result = signum(left->attempt_count() - right->attempt_count());
+
+ // Flip the direction of comparison if policy prefers fewer retries.
+ if (fewer_retries_better_)
+ result *= -1;
+
+ if (result != 0)
+ return (result > 0);
+
+ // If we get here, the attempt counts were the same, so check recency.
+ base::TimeDelta difference = left->creation_time() - right->creation_time();
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 Same for this section. (Extract) And both extract
+ result = signum(difference.InMilliseconds());
+
+ // Flip the direction of the check if policy prefers later requests.
+ if (earlier_requests_better_)
+ result *= -1;
+
+ if (result == 1)
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 this whole block to the end is equivalent to: ret
Pete Williamson 2016/07/21 19:48:45 Done.
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+// Compare the results, checking recency before request count. Returns true if
+// left hand side is better, false otherwise.
+bool RequestPicker::RecencyFirstCompareFunction(
+ const SavePageRequest* left, const SavePageRequest* right) {
+ // Check the recency.
+ base::TimeDelta difference = left->creation_time() - right->creation_time();
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 nit: indentation
Pete Williamson 2016/07/21 19:48:45 Done.
+ int result = signum(difference.InMilliseconds());
+
+ // Flip the direction of comparison if policy prefers fewer retries.
+ if (earlier_requests_better_)
+ result *= -1;
+
+ if (result != 0)
+ return (result > 0);
+
+ // If we get here, the recency was the same, so check the attempt count.
+ result = signum(left->attempt_count() - right->attempt_count());
+
+ // Flip the direction of the check if policy prefers later requests.
+ if (fewer_retries_better_)
+ result *= -1;
+
+ if (result == 1)
fgorski 2016/07/21 17:01:20 same here: return result > 0
Pete Williamson 2016/07/21 19:48:45 Done.
+ return true;
- // When we have a best request to try next, get the request coodinator to
- // start it.
- picked_callback_.Run(picked_request);
+ return false;
}
} // namespace offline_pages

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698