tqdm progress bar improvements

[nikita-savelyevv]

Changes

1. Fixed an issue with wrong tqdm bar length in the case when calibration dataset length is less than subset_size.
   Reproducer: nikita-savelyevv@f0951c1
   Before:
   Statistics collection: 34%|██████ | 101/300 [00:03<00:06, 28.66it/s]
   After:
   When dataset has __len__:
   Statistics collection: 100%|██████████████████| 101/101 [00:03<00:00, 28.20it/s]
   When dataset doesn't have __len__:
   Statistics collection: 34%|██████ | 101/300 [00:03<00:06, 29.45it/s]

2. Improved progress bar GUI when ran from notebooks.
   Before:

or (in some browsers progress bar takes up multiple lines):

After:

In console the progress bar is the same.

Reason for changes

User experience improvement.

Related tickets

112627

Tests

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2114 (ebaa19c) into develop (f6d958f) will increase coverage by 35.92%.
Report is 7 commits behind head on develop.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           develop    #2114       +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage         0   35.92%   +35.92%     
============================================
  Files            0      476      +476     
  Lines            0    42482    +42482     
============================================
+ Hits             0    15263    +15263     
- Misses           0    27219    +27219     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
nncf/common/tensor_statistics/aggregator.py	98.11% <100.00%> (ø)
nncf/data/dataset.py	79.54% <100.00%> (ø)
...antization/algorithms/bias_correction/algorithm.py	93.88% <100.00%> (ø)
...tization/algorithms/channel_alignment/algorithm.py	25.41% <100.00%> (ø)
...ation/algorithms/fast_bias_correction/algorithm.py	90.83% <100.00%> (ø)
.../quantization/algorithms/smooth_quant/algorithm.py	27.84% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 470 files with indirect coverage changes

[nikita-savelyevv]

run pylint pre-commit tests
run tensorflow pre-commit tests
run openvino pre-commit tests
run onnx pre-commit tests

[AlexanderDokuchaev]

@nikita-savelyevv when i try to fix logs in ci like

Statistics collection:   0%|          | 0/300 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
Statistics collection:   0%|          | 1/300 [00:00<01:13,  4.09it/s]
Statistics collection:   1%|          | 2/300 [00:00<00:50,  5.87it/s]
Statistics collection:   1%|▏         | 4/300 [00:00<00:33,  8.79it/s]
Statistics collection:   2%|▏         | 6/300 [00:00<00:26, 11.30it/s]
Statistics collection:   3%|▎         | 8/300 [00:00<00:24, 11.88it/s]
Statistics collection:   3%|▎         | 10/300 [00:00<00:23, 12.10it/s]
Statistics collection:   4%|▍         | 12/300 [00:01<00:23, 12.26it/s]
Statistics collection:   5%|▍         | 14/300 [00:01<00:23, 12.37it/s]
Statistics collection:   5%|▌         | 16/300 [00:01<00:22, 12.41it/s]
Statistics collection:   6%|▌         | 18/300 [00:01<00:22, 12.41it/s]
Statistics collection:   7%|▋         | 20/300 [00:01<00:20, 13.37it/s]
Statistics collection:   7%|▋         | 22/300 [00:01<00:19, 14.33it/s]
Statistics collection:   8%|▊         | 24/300 [00:01<00:18, 15.16it/s]
Statistics collection:   9%|▊         | 26/300 [00:02<00:17, 15.82it/s]
Statistics collection:   9%|▉         | 28/300 [00:02<00:16, 16.18it/s]
Statistics collection:  10%|█         | 30/300 [00:02<00:16, 16.51it/s]
Statistics collection:  11%|█         | 32/300 [00:02<00:16, 16.75it/s]
Statistics collection:  11%|█▏        | 34/300 [00:02<00:15, 16.82it/s]
Statistics collection:  12%|█▏        | 36/300 [00:02<00:15, 16.88it/s]
Statistics collection:  13%|█▎        | 38/300 [00:02<00:15, 16.95it/s]
Statistics collection:  13%|█▎        | 40/300 [00:02<00:15, 17.12it/s]
Statistics collection:  14%|█▍        | 42/300 [00:02<00:14, 17.24it/s]
Statistics collection:  15%|█▍        | 44/300 [00:03<00:14, 17.25it/s]
Statistics collection:  15%|█▌        | 46/300 [00:03<00:14, 17.17it/s]
Statistics collection:  16%|█▌        | 48/300 [00:03<00:14, 17.14it/s]

And found that progress bar from pip looks good in one line

12:00:27    Downloading python_dateutil-2.8.2-py2.py3-none-any.whl (247 kB)
12:00:27       ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 247.7/247.7 kB 23.5 MB/s eta 0:00:00

What you think to use https://github.com/Textualize/rich#rich-library instead of tqdm, and in notebooks it's looks better.

May be will be better to use rich instead of tqdm?

@nikita-savelyevv @alexsu52 @andrey-churkin @kshpv what you think about it?

[kshpv]

@nikita-savelyevv when i try to fix logs in ci like

Statistics collection:   0%|          | 0/300 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
Statistics collection:   0%|          | 1/300 [00:00<01:13,  4.09it/s]
Statistics collection:   1%|          | 2/300 [00:00<00:50,  5.87it/s]
Statistics collection:   1%|▏         | 4/300 [00:00<00:33,  8.79it/s]
Statistics collection:   2%|▏         | 6/300 [00:00<00:26, 11.30it/s]
Statistics collection:   3%|▎         | 8/300 [00:00<00:24, 11.88it/s]
Statistics collection:   3%|▎         | 10/300 [00:00<00:23, 12.10it/s]
Statistics collection:   4%|▍         | 12/300 [00:01<00:23, 12.26it/s]
Statistics collection:   5%|▍         | 14/300 [00:01<00:23, 12.37it/s]
Statistics collection:   5%|▌         | 16/300 [00:01<00:22, 12.41it/s]
Statistics collection:   6%|▌         | 18/300 [00:01<00:22, 12.41it/s]
Statistics collection:   7%|▋         | 20/300 [00:01<00:20, 13.37it/s]
Statistics collection:   7%|▋         | 22/300 [00:01<00:19, 14.33it/s]
Statistics collection:   8%|▊         | 24/300 [00:01<00:18, 15.16it/s]
Statistics collection:   9%|▊         | 26/300 [00:02<00:17, 15.82it/s]
Statistics collection:   9%|▉         | 28/300 [00:02<00:16, 16.18it/s]
Statistics collection:  10%|█         | 30/300 [00:02<00:16, 16.51it/s]
Statistics collection:  11%|█         | 32/300 [00:02<00:16, 16.75it/s]
Statistics collection:  11%|█▏        | 34/300 [00:02<00:15, 16.82it/s]
Statistics collection:  12%|█▏        | 36/300 [00:02<00:15, 16.88it/s]
Statistics collection:  13%|█▎        | 38/300 [00:02<00:15, 16.95it/s]
Statistics collection:  13%|█▎        | 40/300 [00:02<00:15, 17.12it/s]
Statistics collection:  14%|█▍        | 42/300 [00:02<00:14, 17.24it/s]
Statistics collection:  15%|█▍        | 44/300 [00:03<00:14, 17.25it/s]
Statistics collection:  15%|█▌        | 46/300 [00:03<00:14, 17.17it/s]
Statistics collection:  16%|█▌        | 48/300 [00:03<00:14, 17.14it/s]

And found that progress bar from pip looks good in one line

12:00:27    Downloading python_dateutil-2.8.2-py2.py3-none-any.whl (247 kB)
12:00:27       ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 247.7/247.7 kB 23.5 MB/s eta 0:00:00

What you think to use https://github.com/Textualize/rich#rich-library instead of tqdm, and in notebooks it's looks better.

May be will be better to use rich instead of tqdm?

@nikita-savelyevv @alexsu52 @andrey-churkin @kshpv what you think about it?

Looks nice!

[vshampor]

@AlexanderDokuchaev perhaps this is not applicable to progress bars exactly, but rich install an own logging handler in order to work which may mess with NNCF logging logic, so before switching to rich, we need to make sure that the rest of the NNCF logging is not impacted, in samples and in package code.

[nikita-savelyevv]

@AlexanderDokuchaev Thanks for the suggestion. I propose to add rich progress bar in a separate PR because it requires some additional customization, for example the default progress bar from rich doesn't have an iteration counter, only percentage and estimated remaining time:
Working... ━━━━━━━━━━╺━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 25% 0:00:39
The iteration counter can be implemented, but requires addition of some custom code.

So let's merge this PR first, I'll then open another for rich.