mirror of
https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui.git
synced 2026-05-06 19:08:59 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #9778] Stuck "Thinking..." Indicator after Canceling Generation #15644
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @liu-hanyu-97 on GitHub (Feb 11, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/9778
Bug Report: Stuck "Thinking..." Indicator after Canceling Generation - Version 0.5.10, llama.cpp
Title: Stuck "Thinking..." Indicator after Canceling Generation
Description:
When interacting with the model, and it enters the "Thinking..." state (indicated by the "Thinking..." logo/indicator), if the generation process is canceled during this "Thinking..." phase, the "Thinking..." logo/indicator remains visible indefinitely. This indicator persists even after the generation is canceled and the model is no longer actively processing. This is a UI issue and does not block further usage, but it is misleading.
Steps to reproduce:
Expected behavior:
After canceling the generation process, the "Thinking..." indicator should disappear promptly, indicating that the model is no longer processing and is ready for the next interaction. The UI should clearly reflect that the model is idle and awaiting new input.
Actual behavior:
The "Thinking..." indicator remains stuck and visible indefinitely after canceling the generation. It does not clear even after a significant delay.
Impact:
While this bug is primarily a UI issue and does not prevent core functionality (starting new conversations, regenerating responses), it creates a confusing user experience. The persistent "Thinking..." indicator incorrectly suggests that the model is still processing or busy, when in fact it is idle and awaiting new input. This can lead to user confusion and a perception of unresponsiveness.
Environment:
Screenshot:
Additional Notes:
@tjbck commented on GitHub (Feb 11, 2025):
Intended behaviour here.