ropensci-org / badges

Badges for packages in rOpenSci software peer-review
3 stars 0 forks source link

started working on adapting updated_badges.rb for stats review #3

Closed sckott closed 2 years ago

sckott commented 3 years ago

related issue #2

Explanation/questions for you @mpadge

mpadge commented 3 years ago

@sckott first thing i should have said is that stats peer review all happens in main ropensci/software-reveiw repo - the ropenscilabs repo was just a playground. That will change -- and simplify -- this PR a fair bit. Other labels ("review", "seeking", ...) can then just be applied as for normal review, and only the final "approved" badges will change.

Do you have svg files already matching the badges you shared in new badges for stats peer review #2 ?

Yes. They are in my local clone of this repo, but not PR'ed yet until we work out exactly how to incorporate and record versioning into this whole process.

sckott commented 3 years ago

@mpadge thanks for the correction on the repo location!

Okay, got it on the labels.

sckott commented 3 years ago

@mpadge Just pushed more changes, see commit notes above for changes.

let me know any comments on this

mpadge commented 3 years ago

@sckott One thing to note, just to ensure this has NO effect on the way this PR works: We had envisioned commands like @ropensci-review-bot approve silver, but have now changed that as explained here to uniform @ropensci-review-bot approve commands throughout, with the grades stored in a separate HTML variable held in the template header. The issue labels will nevertheless remain the same, and so all grep commands in this PR should still apply regardless, but could you just ensure everything is okay first?

I presume that you manually added the badges in the newly created test issues, right?

sckott commented 3 years ago

I presume that you manually added the badges in the newly created test issues, right?

Yes, I did manually add them

sckott commented 3 years ago

The change shouldn't affect this PR since the code here is only using the labels. But I'll double check

sckott commented 3 years ago

The Actions workflow only runs on main branch, so we hadn't tested these changes on Actions yet, but I copied the code into a repo and it all worked as planned https://github.com/sckott/jubilant-spork/tree/gh-pages

mpadge commented 3 years ago

Cool, thanks. I guess the best thing to do would be to leave the merging of this PR to us, so we are symbolically taking over responsibility for the whole shebang here. It all looks great, but we'll first ensure the whole workflow from bot command through to successful generation of onboarded.json works seamlessly. I'm now at least vaguely confident that most of the work for that is in place, and we'll be able to take from here to get all that integrated. Thanks so much for this really helpful input!

sckott commented 3 years ago

leave the merging of this PR to us

sounds good

It's been my pleasure to help!