Follow up enhancements #23
Comments
|
I think we can also add the point that the activity which should be considered is only the one from the assignees themselves. I believe currently any activity from anyone is considered in the events. |
|
@gentlementlegen the deadline is at Mon, Oct 14, 8:11 PM UTC |
1 similar comment
|
@gentlementlegen the deadline is at Mon, Oct 14, 8:11 PM UTC |
|
@gentlementlegen the deadline is at Tue, Oct 15, 3:22 AM UTC |
1 similar comment
|
@gentlementlegen the deadline is at Tue, Oct 15, 3:22 AM UTC |
|
@0x4007 For the configurable part on "no PR = unassign" policy, it feels like it should be issue based but we don't have configuration on a issue basis, the finer we have is repo scoped. Is that fine enough? |
|
I think repo scoped is probably fine for now |
|
Maybe we should start using Discussions for issues that do not require pull-request, and add the capability to incentivize these. I'll do that repo scoped in the meantime then. My second idea was to add a special title to these issues like If we comment on the PR, we should also consider the case when multiple PRs are opened. Should all of them get the reminder? |
Makes sense, and the disqualified candidates should have theirs closed so no more reminders. Discussions might make sense to use! We tried back a couple years ago to use discussions as "proposals" but evolved the system to stay inside of issues and get them funded to make them "official tasks." |
|
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Task | 1 | 300 |
| Issue | Comment | 3 | 0 |
| Review | Comment | 5 | 0 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
I think we can also add the point that the activity which should… | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 35
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.8 | 0 |
@0x4007 For the configurable part on "no PR = unassign" policy, … | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 39
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.6 | 0 |
Maybe we should start using [Discussions](https://docs.github.co… | 5content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 2
a:
score: 5
elementCount: 1
result: 5
regex:
wordCount: 82
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.7 | 0 |
Resolves #23QA: https://github.com/Meniole/user-activity-watch… | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 2
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 12
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.2 | 0 |
`undefined` is checked, the shift is on purpose, to chec… | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 55
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.8 | 0 |
`activityDate` can be undefined if the user just assigne… | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 42
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.7 | 0 |
Sure, will change it. Thought it was not useful because the netw… | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 20
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.6 | 0 |
@whilefoo @Keyrxng if you want to have a look, I can't assign yo… | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 16
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.1 | 0 |
[ 32.881 WXDAI ]
@0x4007
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Specification | 1 | 28.14 |
| Issue | Comment | 2 | 2.336 |
| Review | Comment | 4 | 2.405 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Follow up should be on pull request so that they don't reply … | 9.38content:
content:
ol:
score: 1
elementCount: 1
li:
score: 0.5
elementCount: 5
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 5
ul:
score: 1
elementCount: 1
result: 4.5
regex:
wordCount: 97
wordValue: 0.1
result: 4.88
| 1 | 28.14 |
I think repo scoped is probably fine for now | 0.65content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 9
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.65
| 0.6 | 0.39 |
Makes sense, and the disqualified candidates should have theirs … | 2.78content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 2
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 50
wordValue: 0.1
result: 2.78
| 0.7 | 1.946 |
```suggestiondescription: "Used for authen… | 0content:
content: {}
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 0
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0
| 0.6 | 0 |
How about a statusCode: 200 instead | 0.46content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 6
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.46
| 0.4 | 0.184 |
This looks like this can shift an `undefined` value, I d… | 2.05content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 35
wordValue: 0.1
result: 2.05
| 0.8 | 1.64 |
I think it should never be undefined. You should throw for that. | 0.83content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 12
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.83
| 0.7 | 0.581 |
[ 0.0285 WXDAI ]
@Keyrxng
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review | Comment | 1 | 0.0285 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
Just about to clock off bud but I'm happy to after I wake. | 0.94content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 14
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.94
| 0.1 | 0.0285 |
|
I realize that we will lose a lot of other plugin capabilities by switching over to discussions. So it might not be a good idea. Alternatively we upgrade every plugin to support discussions, which also doesn't seem like a good idea. Like daemon-pricing comes to mind. |
|
I think we could implement our plugins to support discussions. Discussions have tags as well so our logic could apply there, amd closing the discussions, what we miss is the collection of comments: Meniole/text-conversation-rewards#25 |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: