Selectively enabling comment incentives per task

0x4007 commented 12 months ago

This is a great example of the assignee doing research and it would be elegant for an admin or billing_manager to be able to issue a slash command to force comment incentives to be calculated for a contributor no matter what their recognized role to be after the issue is closed out.

For example /comment-incentives @keyrxng @user2 @user3 true

So even if they are the assignee when the issue is closed as complete, we have the ability to make an exception on this specific issue for them to claim their comment incentives.

This command parameters should work in any order (but the slash command must be first) like our other commands.

I would like to hear suggestions on a more concise command name because that current one seems a bit long.

So we do not want to shackling hunters but enforcing a template or structure I get that and given the observations in the table below I want to make the following points:

Originally posted by @Keyrxng in https://github.com/ubiquity/ubiquibot/issues/777#issuecomment-1723247966

Keyrxng commented 12 months ago

As I was fetching the research this exact bounty came to my mind after learning recently assignees don't get comment incentives, I'll be quicker next time ;)

I think it should just be

/incentivize keyrxng

This command should work in any order, like our other commands.

In my head I thought if they are the assignee of the task then they'll receive no rewards as standard, after the PR is merged and all rewards are allocated then the command is invoked and the bot hoovers up the assignee's comments, does the calc and generates the permit.

But in any order would imply that this command can be invoked from issue open not just issue close.

So would it make sense to follow this path:

run command ``/incentivize keyrxng''
if issue is closed, gather all assignee comments, do the sums and generate the permit
if issue is open, just enable rewards for the assignee (is that for the whole issue or from command onwards?) and they can claim alongside the rest of rewards at PR merge either as one or as two separate permits?

0x4007 commented 12 months ago

To simplify the implementation, the bot should just look for the instance of this comment in the issue at the moment the issue is closed as completed.

If for some reason it was closed as completed, but the admin wanted to provide these rewards, they simply post the command, and then re-open and re-close as complete.

"any order" refers to the arguments. true or false for the state and the usernames (any amount of) should work

/incentivize isn't specific enough. You already would have received the assignee incentive in the above scenario.

Keyrxng commented 12 months ago

To simplify the implementation, the bot should just look for the instance of this comment in the issue at the moment the issue is closed as completed.

I'm hearing that the command itself is more of a pseudo command and acts more like a placeholder than anything else?

We can create a Pre callBack for issueClosed events and check before each issue is closed for the placeholder, if it exists pass in the usernames that comment contains and calculate their incentives before closing the issue outright?

It can be safeguarded by checking whoever wrote the command has sufficient access/authority to do so

Obv still add it to the list of available commands via the /help command but the command itself doesn't actually execute any logic. It could be logged "x has started earning rewards on issue 123" when invoked but the actual logic would be executed as part of the issueClose pre handler.

BeanieMen commented 12 months ago

it might be rude of me but can i do this issue?

Keyrxng commented 12 months ago

@me505 if that was aimed at myself don't be silly nothing rude about it, I'm here for the discussion at the moment and would have taken the bounty if left unassigned in a week or so. So you carry on mate

BeanieMen commented 12 months ago

cant we just add a helper function which see who has been incentived by /comment-incentives @keyrxng @user2 @user3 true and returns a list of the users to and iterates to see who can be incentivized inincentivizeComments post callback

BeanieMen commented 12 months ago

/start

ubiquibot[bot] commented 12 months ago



  
    
    
  
  
    Deadline
    Mon, 18 Sep 2023 20:44:27 UTC
  
  
    Registered Wallet
    0x5387ab162D3Fc48a8c9857517E36cF4B55dE8c1a

Tips:

Use /wallet 0x0000...0000 if you want to update your registered payment wallet address @user.
Be sure to open a draft pull request as soon as possible to communicate updates on your progress.
Be sure to provide timely updates to us when requested, or you will be automatically unassigned from the bounty.

0x4007 commented 12 months ago

We can create a Pre callBack for issueClosed events and check before each issue is closed for the placeholder, if it exists pass in the usernames that comment contains and calculate their incentives before closing the issue outright?

It can be safeguarded by checking whoever wrote the command has sufficient access/authority to do so

Yes this all sounds good to me.

cant we just add a helper function which see who has been incentived by /comment-incentives @Keyrxng @user2 @user3 true and returns a list of the users to and iterates to see who can be incentivized inincentivizeComments post callback

I think the simplest implementation would be if we use the comments as the "database" and the bot looks for this comment before posting all of the payments.

BeanieMen commented 12 months ago

should the bot incentivize everyone by default @pavlovcik?

Keyrxng commented 12 months ago

https://github.com/Keyrxng/UbiquityBotTesting/issues/43#issuecomment-1712886879

Weird that on my repo where I implemented the whitespace removal you can clearly see the formatting for my table has slightly improved vs the one above, the changes have been merged in so they should be reflected here.

Not the end of the world but deffo an annoyance for me personally but if you think it's worth a debug I will look into it @pavlovcik

0x4007 commented 12 months ago

I couldnt figure out how to remove the monospace background artifact. I wouldnt go out of your way to solve it because I dont think its an easy fix, and its so low priority.

0x4007 commented 12 months ago

should the bot incentivize everyone by default @pavlovcik?

No but i'm pretty sure that this bounty has nothing to do with controlling that. That was handled as part of a different spec I believe.

whilefoo commented 11 months ago

If for some reason it was closed as completed, but the admin wanted to provide these rewards, they simply post the command, and then re-open and re-close as complete.

I think that won't work because permit was possibly already generated for that user and we have rule: one permit per user per issue

0x4007 commented 11 months ago

If for some reason it was closed as completed, but the admin wanted to provide these rewards, they simply post the command, and then re-open and re-close as complete.

I think that won't work because permit was possibly already generated for that user and we have rule: one permit per user per issue

It seems that the issuer might be the only one who would get screwed in this case. But even if that is an issue, an admin can delete their permit comment, and then regenerate it as long as they didn't already claim the first one the nonce is still valid.

ubiquibot[bot] commented 11 months ago

@me505 - Releasing the bounty back to dev pool because the allocated duration already ended! Last activity time: Mon Sep 18 2023 16:52:43 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

BeanieMen commented 11 months ago

/start

ubiquibot[bot] commented 11 months ago





Deadline
Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:29:10 UTC


Registered Wallet
0x5387ab162D3Fc48a8c9857517E36cF4B55dE8c1a

Tips:

Use /wallet 0x0000...0000 if you want to update your registered payment wallet address @user.
Be sure to open a draft pull request as soon as possible to communicate updates on your progress.
Be sure to provide timely updates to us when requested, or you will be automatically unassigned from the bounty.

ubiquibot[bot] commented 11 months ago

Do you have any updates @me505? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop Last activity time: Sat Sep 30 2023 09:42:15 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

ubiquibot[bot] commented 11 months ago

Do you have any updates @me505? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop Last activity time: Thu Oct 05 2023 16:24:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

BeanieMen commented 11 months ago

Wait James mcgee

ubiquibot[bot] commented 11 months ago

Do you have any updates @me505? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop Last activity time: Tue Oct 10 2023 14:27:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

ubiquibot[bot] commented 10 months ago

Do you have any updates @me505? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop Last activity time: Tue Oct 24 2023 04:42:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)