search

teemtee / tmt

Test Management Tool
MIT License
86 stars 130 forks source link

The Review Challenge #1976

Closed psss closed 1 year ago

psss commented 1 year ago

As mentioned on the hacking session, during the month of April we want to improve the speed of the pull request review. The queue is quite long and it would be nice to get more contributors familiar with the code in order to make the tmt development more fluent. The Review Challenge has three levels:

Review at least one pull request:

@4N0body5, @adiosnb, @dkarpele, @frantisekz, @guy9050, @happz, @hegerj, @HuijingHei, @idorax, @jscotka, @juk, @kkaarreell, @KwisatzHaderach, @mkoncek, @pcahyna, @pfdaly, @pvalena, @RHEmployee, @Tiboris, @ukulekek, @ZelenyMartin, which level are you going to join? :)

lukaszachy commented 1 year ago

Each day counts with weekends and PTOs?

I'd be in for 5 per week.

psss commented 1 year ago

Yeap, each work day, ~5 days per week.

psss commented 1 year ago

Week One

31 pull request reviews in total.

happz commented 1 year ago

Week One

  • happz ... 11
  • janhavlin ... 3
  • lukaszachy ... 5
  • psss ... 11
  • thrix ... 7

37 pull request reviews in total.

I wonder, how exactly are these numbers computed? I'm not really sure I reviewed 11 PRs. I did comment on a lot of them, sure, every time I see an empty comment box, I tend to comment, but marking 11 PRs as "approved" seems too much.

psss commented 1 year ago

I just used did --github-pull-requests-reviewed for this. As I mentioned on the meeting, the query is not perfect, and github mentions some irrelevant ones but I didn't want to spend much time looking into this in detail. I quickly checked my pull requests and they seemed ok. Here's the full output:

Status report for the week 14 (2023-04-03 to 2023-04-09).

happz commented 1 year ago

Right, I did not think about did. But, it does list PRs that I did not review, half of the PRs listed I wrote, not reviewed. #1909, #1912, #1920, …

psss commented 1 year ago

Hm, I reported the problem to GitHub in 2019, still without being addressed. But what we could do is to explicitly omit pull requests created by the owner:

@happz, does the list look ok now?

happz commented 1 year ago

Hm, I reported the problem to GitHub in 2019, still without being addressed. But what we could do is to explicitly omit pull requests created by the owner:

@happz, does the list look ok now?

Absolutely, this looks much more like what actually happened :) Thank you!

psss commented 1 year ago

Good! Fixing this directly in did as well:

And the Week One stats updated.

HuijingHei commented 1 year ago

every week looks good to me, thanks!

psss commented 1 year ago

Great, added. Good luck with the reviews, @HuijingHei!

idorax commented 1 year ago

Hi @psss, two PRs every month look good to me as 1) I don't have enough confidence in understanding TMT code and 2) I don't exactly know how to write Pythonic code.

happz commented 1 year ago

I'm afraid the closed filter will mess with the statistics. This week, I reviewed 4 PRs, approving 3 of them, and proposing changes in the last one. Only one of these PRs would show in the report because only one of these PRs has been merged & closed. When merging slips into the next week, numbers won't reflect the reality of the current one, and so on. It seems to me it's not possible to get just reviewed PRs in a given date range...

psss commented 1 year ago

Yes, in this respect the github filter is quite limited... I was not able to find anything better.

psss commented 1 year ago

Week Two

Adding stats for the second week. As the github query is not completely precise, feel free edit the comment to make it aligned with reality.

30 pull request reviews in total.

psss commented 1 year ago

Week Three

26 pull request reviews in total.

psss commented 1 year ago

Week Four

16 pull request reviews in total.

psss commented 1 year ago

And here goes a rough summary for the whole month:

Thanks to all who contributed their time to reviews :) Very much appreciated!