Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

✨ More features #24

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 25, 2022
Merged

✨ More features #24

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 25, 2022

Conversation

omg-xtao
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@viezly
Copy link

viezly bot commented Dec 25, 2022

Changes preview:

Legend:

👀 Review pull request on Viezly

@yupix yupix self-requested a review December 25, 2022 07:11
Copy link
Owner

@yupix yupix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are planning to change DocString to English, so please change this pull request as well!

mipac/actions/note.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
mipac/models/note.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
mipac/models/note.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 268 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +208 -60
Percentile : 66.8%

Total files changed: 8

Change summary by file extension:
.py : +208 -60

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@omg-xtao omg-xtao requested a review from yupix December 25, 2022 07:30
Copy link
Owner

@yupix yupix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💯

@yupix yupix merged commit 42eb0cb into yupix:master Dec 25, 2022
@omg-xtao omg-xtao deleted the more branch December 25, 2022 07:32
)
if isinstance(res, dict):
return NoteTranslateResult(res)
APIError(f'Translate Error: {res}', res if isinstance(res, int) else 204).raise_error()
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

63% of developers fix this issue

Incompatible parameter type: Expected int for 2nd positional only parameter to call APIError.__init__ but got typing.Union[INoteTranslateResult, int].


ℹ️ Learn about @sonatype-lift commands

You can reply with the following commands. For example, reply with @sonatype-lift ignoreall to leave out all findings.

Command Usage
@sonatype-lift ignore Leave out the above finding from this PR
@sonatype-lift ignoreall Leave out all the existing findings from this PR
@sonatype-lift exclude <file|issue|path|tool> Exclude specified file|issue|path|tool from Lift findings by updating your config.toml file

Note: When talking to LiftBot, you need to refresh the page to see its response.
Click here to add LiftBot to another repo.


Was this a good recommendation?
[ 🙁 Not relevant ] - [ 😕 Won't fix ] - [ 😑 Not critical, will fix ] - [ 🙂 Critical, will fix ] - [ 😊 Critical, fixing now ]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants