refactor(verbosity): better handling for verbosity

[cohow]

Resolves #94

Reward is now calculated based on (count^expo) * multiplier * score * multiplierFactor.multiplier

for example, im going to use issue https://github.com/ubiquibot/conversation-rewards/issues/95 reward calculation was the following

the new verbosity algorithm would take ((65^0.85) * 0.1 * 1 * 3) + ((16^0.85) * 0.1 * 0 * 3) which would equal to 10.42 instead of the old 19.5

Please check and let me know if there's any issues, also I not sure if it's an issue but I had to create a different _calculateFormattingTotal for calculations due to cognitive complexity related issues from lint

[gentlementlegen]

@cohow Thank you for the PR. I am fine with the changes, please fix the Jest tests that all broke due to the results changing with the formula.

[cohow]

@cohow Thank you for the PR. I am fine with the changes, please fix the Jest tests that all broke due to the results changing with the formula.

I was looking at the tests and it seems like the problem is coming from the results not equaling the mock results and was wondering if there was a way to generate a new mock results file without having to edit all the rewards separately, if not then I'll just manage to figure something out.

[gentlementlegen]

@cohow When I want to update them I copy paste the diff of the proper result so I don't have to manually fix all the numbers.

However according to your screenshot there are lots of decimals to the results. I don't know if that's what we want.

[cohow]

I believe these changes should fix all the issues with the mock results being incorrect.

I've also changed the calculation to cut off at 2 decimal places because exponents tend to produce a lot of decimals. If you want I can also change it to round up or down, but that would require all the tests to be changed again.

let me know if anything goes wrong or any expected results appear, or you require any changes, I'll try to get a fix out ASAP.

[0x4007]

I've also changed the calculation to cut off at 2 decimal places because exponents tend to produce a lot of decimals. If you want I can also change it to round up or down, but that would require all the tests to be changed again.

Use a numbers library like bignumber to handle this.

[cohow]

I've also changed the calculation to cut off at 2 decimal places because exponents tend to produce a lot of decimals. If you want I can also change it to round up or down, but that would require all the tests to be changed again.

Use a numbers library like bignumber to handle this.

bignumber to handle the rounding or cutting off decimals? right now decimal.js is able to handle both actually so I'm not sure if another library would be needed.

[0x4007]

Sure use decimal for all calculations.

[cohow]

if I'm not wrong the last checks tests depend on https://github.com/ubiquibot/conversation-rewards/pull/108 or one of the issues that were linked in it. LMK if you need anything else!

[gentlementlegen]

@cohow You mean that your pull-request test fixes depend on another pull-request?

[cohow]

@cohow You mean that your pull-request test fixes depend on another pull-request?

The last tests failed due issues with permit generation, which is not caused by this PR and after checking other PRS I believe PR #108 fixes that issue if I'm not wrong

[gentlementlegen]

After checking the logs, it seems that everything works as expected but since your changes also modified the results the permit urls got changed as well (for example check https://github.com/ubiquibot/conversation-rewards/actions/runs/10753678522/job/29832632935?pr=109#step:4:432) so you should just have to fix the result and every test should pass.

[cohow]

After checking the logs, it seems that everything works as expected but since your changes also modified the results the permit urls got changed as well (for example check https://github.com/ubiquibot/conversation-rewards/actions/runs/10753678522/job/29832632935?pr=109#step:4:432) so you should just have to fix the result and every test should pass.

Ok that does make sense considering mock results are pre made.. I'm not sure why but I thought permits were being generated on the spot. I'll push changes to fix those issues when when I'm back from my class.

[gentlementlegen]

@cohow Seems that the tests are still failing. I would advise running them locally or on your own repo to avoid having to wait for me revalidating workflows every time.

[cohow]

ok I'm really shocked how many attempts this took for me to fix, but I finally fixed the tests I believe, tested locally and they passed.

[cohow]

Seems like the permit URLs have changed, i’ll get a fix out asap.

[cohow]

Quite lost on why I keep getting 2 different test results between when I run it locally and Github actions

for example https://github.com/ubiquibot/conversation-rewards/actions/runs/10832843625/job/30060543240#step:4:580 Its expecting a 1.57 but receives 1.232 and when I change them I get the exact opposite

            "relevance": 1,
-           "reward": 1.232,
+           "reward": 1.57,

[gentlementlegen]

This is probably because you are using your own credentials so the status you see for the other user differs from when Ubiquibot checks the author association, changing the reward results. Also, be aware that there are two results: one comes from the JSON and one comes from the HTML file.

[gentlementlegen]

@cohow Fixed the tests for you. also, seems to work, here is my QA: https://github.com/Meniole/conversation-rewards/issues/12#issuecomment-2346757261 However I think some explanation should be added to the result so the user understand what's going on in the results. @0x4007 rfc

[0x4007]

@cohow Fixed the tests for you. also, seems to work, here is my QA: Meniole#12 (comment) However I think some explanation should be added to the result so the user understand what's going on in the results. @0x4007 rfc

Not sure if its easy to tell to be honest. How is somebody expected to manually count all their words and complain that there is a discrepancy? We can add a small blurb in the details table if somebody complains.

[gentlementlegen]

Maybe something very simple like adding coeff: 0.85 in the output? That would also show what value was used from the configuration to avoid bad surprises.

[0x4007]

I dont think its something people will notice. We can add if its a problem. I'm just concerned it will lead to more confusion. And if we add too much info it will look bad.