-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
IRC-chat-12-07-2018.txt
187 lines (187 loc) · 16.3 KB
/
IRC-chat-12-07-2018.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
[2018-07-12 13:08:11] <jgbarah> Hi, aswanipranjal!
[2018-07-12 13:08:22] <jgbarah> Sorry for my delay. Finally I'm here ;-)
[2018-07-12 13:08:39] <aswanipranjal> Hey @jgbarah! No issues!
[2018-07-12 13:09:06] <jgbarah> Ooook. Let'st start then, right?
[2018-07-12 13:09:11] <aswanipranjal> Yeah
[2018-07-12 13:09:49] <jgbarah> Interesting this stoicist quote you had in your blog post ;-)
[2018-07-12 13:09:59] <jgbarah> I saw it raised interest in the mailing list
[2018-07-12 13:10:19] <jgbarah> Well, wrt tasks...
[2018-07-12 13:10:28] <aswanipranjal> Yeah, I should be careful about what I write
[2018-07-12 13:10:38] <jgbarah> #2 is slow, yes. I'll try to push it a bit
[2018-07-12 13:11:07] <jgbarah> Oh, on the contrary, aswanipranjal I think people appreciate the context of your posts. Not everything under the sun is technical
[2018-07-12 13:11:35] <jgbarah> (for the record, that was a bad joke for patent attorneys)
[2018-07-12 13:11:41] <aswanipranjal> Ah, haha. I didn't look at it that way
[2018-07-12 13:12:09] <jgbarah> ok, #3...
[2018-07-12 13:12:38] <jgbarah> Yes, I agree tests need to be completed
[2018-07-12 13:12:52] <jgbarah> I also opened an issue about the names for files, classes, functions...
[2018-07-12 13:13:08] <aswanipranjal> Yes, the names are not at all great now
[2018-07-12 13:13:11] <jgbarah> I suggest that we keep it open, for improving this stuff
[2018-07-12 13:13:32] <jgbarah> If we have time today, we can talk a bit about names at the end of our meeting...
[2018-07-12 13:13:39] <aswanipranjal> Do you have any thing specific in mind regarding the names?
[2018-07-12 13:14:02] <jgbarah> But now, except that you have other comment for #3, let's follow on with the other tasks, just in case...
[2018-07-12 13:14:05] <aswanipranjal> > I suggest that we keep it open, for improving this stuff
[2018-07-12 13:14:05] <aswanipranjal> okay
[2018-07-12 13:14:32] <jgbarah> (yes, i have, but should we have no time today, I will elaborate in the issue)
[2018-07-12 13:14:39] <aswanipranjal> Okay
[2018-07-12 13:15:32] <jgbarah> Task #5... Yes, I think it is close to complete. I can say little here, except for: let me know if Valerio or Alvaro are too slow with the reviews, so that I bug them a bit...
[2018-07-12 13:15:54] <aswanipranjal> I am co-ordinating with them on the PR itself
[2018-07-12 13:16:02] <jgbarah> In any case, I see you're starting to have appropriate indexes for the metrics, right?
[2018-07-12 13:16:19] <aswanipranjal> yeah, the pull requests have their own index now
[2018-07-12 13:16:23] <jgbarah> I saw valerio was proposing a new schema for having like subsections in mordred config file
[2018-07-12 13:16:39] <aswanipranjal> Yes, he did. We are using that only for now
[2018-07-12 13:16:54] <aswanipranjal> what I proposed was a new connector by the name of github_prs
[2018-07-12 13:17:04] <aswanipranjal> but that was inefficient
[2018-07-12 13:18:00] <aswanipranjal> There are some metrics in GMD code development for which I need some more clarification
[2018-07-12 13:18:08] <aswanipranjal> I mentioned them in the blog post
[2018-07-12 13:18:20] <jgbarah> Yes, I saw. In any case, I'm confident on what Valerio and Alvaro propose and review, so I'm just trying to ensure they remain involved
[2018-07-12 13:18:39] <aswanipranjal> Oh, okay.
[2018-07-12 13:19:19] <jgbarah> Yes, I saw your commennt about those metrics. Let's go one by one.
[2018-07-12 13:19:34] <jgbarah> First of all, in the case of GitHub, code review is basically pull request.
[2018-07-12 13:19:34] <aswanipranjal> Code Reviews
[2018-07-12 13:19:48] <jgbarah> So, number of code review is number of pull requests.
[2018-07-12 13:20:00] <aswanipranjal> Ah, okay
[2018-07-12 13:20:14] <jgbarah> We can refine it, but for now, I would say that's number of pull requests opened during a certain period
[2018-07-12 13:20:14] <aswanipranjal> I thought code reviews were how many reviews the PR gets
[2018-07-12 13:20:21] <aswanipranjal> Okay, got it
[2018-07-12 13:20:50] <aswanipranjal> that clears *code Review Efficiency* too
[2018-07-12 13:20:54] <jgbarah> CR efficiency: for this we can use the discussion we had on efficiency for issues
[2018-07-12 13:20:57] <jgbarah> Yessss
[2018-07-12 13:21:24] <aswanipranjal> *Maintainer Response to Merge Request Duration*: this is the first time a review was made on the PR, right?
[2018-07-12 13:21:43] <aswanipranjal> because in case of pull requests, we are not taking the comment_data into account
[2018-07-12 13:22:19] <jgbarah> Mantainer response: yes, I think we can consider anything labeled as review as the time when a "maintainer" first reacts to a pull request (CR)
[2018-07-12 13:22:52] <aswanipranjal> okay
[2018-07-12 13:22:54] <jgbarah> But I wonder why we're not using "comment_data" for PRs?
[2018-07-12 13:23:23] <aswanipranjal> perceval doesnot generate it for items of `pull_request` category
[2018-07-12 13:23:57] <aswanipranjal> should I start looking into adding that into perceval?
[2018-07-12 13:23:59] <jgbarah> Hmmm. That's weird...
[2018-07-12 13:24:15] <jgbarah> But it gets that ffrom the issues API, doesn't it?
[2018-07-12 13:24:41] <aswanipranjal> yeah, when we get the data normally for GitHub data source using perceval, we get the comments data as well
[2018-07-12 13:24:47] <aswanipranjal> for issues as well as prs
[2018-07-12 13:25:09] <jgbarah> Then, we have the data from Perceval...
[2018-07-12 13:25:32] <jgbarah> What you mean is that we're not using it to enrich the new index for PRs in grimoire-elk, right?
[2018-07-12 13:26:46] <aswanipranjal> No, at the time of enrichment for `pull_request` data, we are using only the data available at that time. And it doesnot include `comments_data`, only number of comments
[2018-07-12 13:28:01] <aswanipranjal> We can add a fetch comments_data for `pull_request` as well, we'll have to add that to perceval GitHub
[2018-07-12 13:28:38] <jgbarah> Pleasse, open an issue with that in grimoire-elk.
[2018-07-12 13:28:56] <jgbarah> The enriched index for pull requests should be complete, and that includes comment, of course...
[2018-07-12 13:29:09] <aswanipranjal> the enriched indices for `pull_request` and `issues + pr` (using perceval github, without using the category param) are generated differently
[2018-07-12 13:29:13] <jgbarah> Fortunately, for now we don't need them, I think
[2018-07-12 13:29:40] <aswanipranjal> >The enriched index for pull requests should be complete, and that includes comment, of course...
[2018-07-12 13:29:40] <aswanipranjal> Yes. Should I open an issue in Perceval instead?>
[2018-07-12 13:30:10] <jgbarah> Yes, I know that, but I had missed that in prs only the data from the prs API is present. I'm still not sure we really need to annotate it with data from the issues API,
[2018-07-12 13:30:20] <jgbarah> since we could also combine the indexes.
[2018-07-12 13:30:30] <jgbarah> But please open the issue, and we discuss in it.
[2018-07-12 13:30:53] <aswanipranjal> I am sorry, I am a little confused here.
[2018-07-12 13:30:54] <jgbarah> No, I think it would be grimoire-elk. Perceval is fine, it is a matter of how to enrich the data, I think
[2018-07-12 13:31:33] <aswanipranjal> Are we planning on combining the enriched indices for `pull_request` only data and `issues + prs` data generated?
[2018-07-12 13:32:32] <jgbarah> I think that's a possibility, at leaast in some cases. In Elasticsearch you can combine indexes pretty easy
[2018-07-12 13:32:39] <jgbarah> (index alises is the name it uses=)
[2018-07-12 13:32:58] <aswanipranjal> Oh, okay. I'll read a bit about aliases
[2018-07-12 13:33:02] <jgbarah> But for now, I thinnk it would better to have all the data about prs in the prs index...
[2018-07-12 13:33:10] <jgbarah> We can discuss in the issue.
[2018-07-12 13:33:13] <aswanipranjal> I'll open an issue in gelk
[2018-07-12 13:33:21] <jgbarah> Thanks!
[2018-07-12 13:33:24] <jgbarah> OK, next one
[2018-07-12 13:33:36] <jgbarah> Code Review Iteration
[2018-07-12 13:33:50] <aswanipranjal> the comments are important because the last 3 metrics I wanted to discuss depend on PR comments
[2018-07-12 13:33:51] <jgbarah> In the case of Gerrit for example there is a clear meaning for "iteration"
[2018-07-12 13:34:01] <aswanipranjal> > Code Review Iteration
[2018-07-12 13:34:03] <aswanipranjal> yes
[2018-07-12 13:34:16] <jgbarah> In our case, we can use the number of new versions of the code that was uploaded
[2018-07-12 13:34:33] <aswanipranjal> How do you suggest that we calculate that?
[2018-07-12 13:34:51] <jgbarah> We could use also the number of new versions of the code with at least one review between versions, which would be more accurate
[2018-07-12 13:35:28] <jgbarah> Since if the developer just decides to upload a new version of the proposed code, that's not really a new iteration
[2018-07-12 13:35:43] <aswanipranjal> yes, i agree
[2018-07-12 13:36:08] <jgbarah> Now as I write this, I'm wondering if we have the data about uploaded versions of code in the pr api, as retrieved by Perceval
[2018-07-12 13:36:15] <jgbarah> I think we have, am I right??
[2018-07-12 13:36:33] <aswanipranjal> I am looking into it, give me 2 min please
[2018-07-12 13:37:16] <jgbarah> Please, go ahead
[2018-07-12 13:38:53] <jgbarah> (while you can look at that...) For the rest of the metrics, as you said, all of them are related to comments
[2018-07-12 13:38:59] <aswanipranjal> yes
[2018-07-12 13:39:26] <jgbarah> So, we have two options: either retrieve that info from the current issues index (either because it is merged with PRs, or standalone)
[2018-07-12 13:39:39] <jgbarah> or we include that data in the PRs index
[2018-07-12 13:39:56] <jgbarah> I prefer the second, but let's discuss in that index that I commented.
[2018-07-12 13:40:22] <aswanipranjal> The gelk issue that i am going to open?
[2018-07-12 13:40:31] <jgbarah> Yes
[2018-07-12 13:40:31] <aswanipranjal> discuss it in that, right?
[2018-07-12 13:40:38] <jgbarah> Yes
[2018-07-12 13:40:38] <aswanipranjal> > if we have the data about uploaded versions of code in the pr api, as retrieved by Perceval
[2018-07-12 13:40:38] <aswanipranjal> I don't see any data that is available directly. We have the reviews and their comments in the `review_comments_data`
[2018-07-12 13:41:11] <jgbarah> When you mean "directly" yoy mean in the enriched iindex?
[2018-07-12 13:41:39] <jgbarah> Oh, i see you mean in the raw index, as retrieved by Perceval, right?
[2018-07-12 13:41:44] <aswanipranjal> Yes
[2018-07-12 13:42:13] <jgbarah> OK, then we need a new task, let's call it #8
[2018-07-12 13:42:39] <jgbarah> To find out in which GitHub API you can check when developers upload new versions of the code to be reviewed
[2018-07-12 13:42:49] <aswanipranjal> Okay
[2018-07-12 13:43:10] <aswanipranjal> sounds good
[2018-07-12 13:43:12] <jgbarah> Could you open a new issue in Perceval for this? Maybe Valerio or Santi already know
[2018-07-12 13:43:22] <aswanipranjal> I'll open an issue
[2018-07-12 13:43:23] <jgbarah> They know the GitHub API much better than I do
[2018-07-12 13:43:28] <jgbarah> Thanks!
[2018-07-12 13:43:31] <aswanipranjal> Sure!
[2018-07-12 13:43:48] <jgbarah> If they don't answer, pleaase try to research yourself. I will try to have a look too, if they don't know
[2018-07-12 13:43:59] <aswanipranjal> Maybe we can figure it out using that huge review comment data blob
[2018-07-12 13:44:15] <aswanipranjal> yes, I'll try to figure it out
[2018-07-12 13:44:40] <jgbarah> Then, let's leave that metric depending on code uploads waiting until we're done with this #8, which likely will include a Perceval backend, I think...
[2018-07-12 13:44:53] <jgbarah> Maybe it is there...
[2018-07-12 13:44:56] <aswanipranjal> Okay!
[2018-07-12 13:45:06] <jgbarah> Well, whatever, let's talk in that issue that you're about to open
[2018-07-12 13:45:13] <aswanipranjal> Yes
[2018-07-12 13:45:42] <jgbarah> WRT metrics for comments, let´s wait also until lthe discussion on which index to enrich is done
[2018-07-12 13:46:01] <aswanipranjal> okay, that works
[2018-07-12 13:46:04] <jgbarah> And I think that's all for the missing memtrics that you had in your blog post, right?
[2018-07-12 13:46:16] <aswanipranjal> yeah that is all
[2018-07-12 13:46:28] <jgbarah> ok, let's go now to #7...
[2018-07-12 13:46:41] <aswanipranjal> I am working on 7B
[2018-07-12 13:46:50] <jgbarah> What's your problem with it?
[2018-07-12 13:47:45] <aswanipranjal> I was having troubles figuring out how to realise the metrics and create CSV files without creating a bunch of Classes like before
[2018-07-12 13:48:02] <aswanipranjal> like it has it being done currently
[2018-07-12 13:48:45] <jgbarah> Let's start without classes.
[2018-07-12 13:49:20] <jgbarah> Just have a function for each metric, and call the needed (new) code to produce it and the CSV
[2018-07-12 13:49:20] <aswanipranjal> So just to generate the csv files directly then?
[2018-07-12 13:49:29] <jgbarah> Then, we find the common code, and refactor
[2018-07-12 13:49:34] <jgbarah> Yes.
[2018-07-12 13:49:53] <aswanipranjal> Okay, that'll be a good start
[2018-07-12 13:49:55] <aswanipranjal> thanks!
[2018-07-12 13:49:59] <jgbarah> That way, we can start writing tests, and we can check that the code is working. At the same time we understand what makes sense to reuse
[2018-07-12 13:50:10] <jgbarah> Then, we can refactor, should be easy
[2018-07-12 13:50:14] <jgbarah> Is that ok then?
[2018-07-12 13:50:26] <aswanipranjal> yeah, that sounds great
[2018-07-12 13:50:33] <jgbarah> Great!
[2018-07-12 13:50:52] <aswanipranjal> I was trying to directly use the classes, that i got stuck there
[2018-07-12 13:50:53] <jgbarah> Then I think we only have the thing about the names missing, except that you want to raise any other issue...
[2018-07-12 13:51:15] <aswanipranjal> No, that is it i think
[2018-07-12 13:51:19] <aswanipranjal> we can talk about the names
[2018-07-12 13:51:29] <jgbarah> aswanipranjal: if you produce some code (eg, for a couple of metrics) quickly, i will try to review it tomorrow or over the weekend
[2018-07-12 13:51:44] <aswanipranjal> yeah, I am working on it.
[2018-07-12 13:51:53] <aswanipranjal> I'll make a PR by tomorrow at the latest
[2018-07-12 13:53:00] <jgbarah> ok
[2018-07-12 13:53:17] <jgbarah> WRT names, if yoou don´ t mind, let's talk in the issue, I'm running short of time
[2018-07-12 13:53:23] <aswanipranjal> oh, okay
[2018-07-12 13:53:24] <aswanipranjal> sorry
[2018-07-12 13:53:29] <aswanipranjal> One last thing
[2018-07-12 13:53:30] <jgbarah> But I was just thinking about using meaningful names for stuff
[2018-07-12 13:53:43] <jgbarah> Like if a class is for searches, call it Search or something like that
[2018-07-12 13:53:50] <aswanipranjal> I'll try to think of something
[2018-07-12 13:53:57] <aswanipranjal> okay
[2018-07-12 13:54:11] <jgbarah> if a file is for everything related to getting data, call it get_data, or maybe a better name...
[2018-07-12 13:54:24] <jgbarah> If you can make some suggestions in the issue, we can discuss there
[2018-07-12 13:54:26] <jgbarah> OK?
[2018-07-12 13:54:33] <aswanipranjal> yes,
[2018-07-12 13:54:39] <aswanipranjal> I just wanted to ask you if you had submitted my second review?
[2018-07-12 13:54:40] <jgbarah> Great!
[2018-07-12 13:54:58] <jgbarah> Yes, I did ;-) I assume you submitted your part
[2018-07-12 13:55:01] <aswanipranjal> And if you have any feedback for me
[2018-07-12 13:55:12] <aswanipranjal> >Yes, I did ;-) I assume you submitted your part
[2018-07-12 13:55:12] <aswanipranjal> yes i did
[2018-07-12 13:55:23] <jgbarah> I wrote some feedback in the review itself, which I think will be sent to you tomorrow
[2018-07-12 13:55:30] <aswanipranjal> Okay, great!
[2018-07-12 13:55:33] <aswanipranjal> Thank you
[2018-07-12 13:55:47] <jgbarah> In short, we're on track (that's my impression), but now we need to focus on delivering, since the project is in its last stage...
[2018-07-12 13:56:03] <aswanipranjal> Yeah, I agree. I am on it.
[2018-07-12 13:56:05] <jgbarah> I hope you're still happy with this project, and finding it interesting
[2018-07-12 13:56:26] <aswanipranjal> Yeah, i get to experiment with stuff so that's great!
[2018-07-12 13:56:31] <jgbarah> Great!
[2018-07-12 13:56:41] <jgbarah> I need to leave now. See you next wed!
[2018-07-12 13:56:45] <jgbarah> Bye!
[2018-07-12 13:56:47] <aswanipranjal> Yeah
[2018-07-12 13:56:54] <aswanipranjal> thank you for your time! Bye!