Properly handle task limit #28
Comments
|
/start |
! You have reached your max task limit. Please close out some tasks before assigning new ones. |
|
/start |
Tip
|
|
Passed the deadline and no activity is detected, removing assignees: @jordan-ae. |
! jordan-ae you were previously unassigned from this task. You cannot be reassigned. |
|
@jordan-ae the deadline is at Tue, Nov 5, 4:32 PM UTC |
|
A new workroom has been created for this task. Join chat |
|
Passed the deadline and no activity is detected, removing assignees: @jordan-ae. |
|
Is this task up for grabs or is @jordan-ae still working on it |
|
Still working on it trying to get test pass. Giving me a bit of a hassle |
|
/stop |
1 similar comment
|
/stop |
|
This has a big chance of not performing well as a worker with these suggestions because:
Perhaps moving to a dist build action should be considered? |
|
@Keyrxng While I do agree that it will elongate the run time, I am not sure if we need to paginate reviews? I didn't go through the whole API but maybe we can only consider the last review? Or get a list of unresolved comments? I actually am worried more about hitting the fetch limit that the runtime duration itself (because runtime duration can be optimized, api are much harder to improve). Moving to a dist build is totally possible, but the main problem is that even if the run could be instantaneous, we cannot skip the duration where the action run is being picked up by a gitHub node. This can sometimes take 1s, sometimes 5 minutes or more. Which is why it can be unreliable for commands that needs to be responsive. Switching from one to another should be made much easier once #86 is merged in. |
|
/start |
|
Warning You have reached your max task limit. Please close out some tasks before assigning new ones. |
|
@gentlementlegen the deadline is at Fri, Nov 22, 8:46 AM UTC |
+ Evaluating results. Please wait... |
|
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Task | 1 | 200 |
| Issue | Comment | 1 | 8.525 |
| Review | Comment | 3 | 0 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Priority | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
@Keyrxng While I do agree that it will elongate the run time, I … | 12.03content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 3
a:
score: 5
elementCount: 1
result: 5
regex:
wordCount: 149
wordValue: 0.1
result: 7.03
| 0.5 | 4 | 8.525 |
Resolves #28Depends on #86 QA: https://github.com/Meniole/co… | 8content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 7
h2:
score: 1
elementCount: 1
ul:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
li:
score: 0.5
elementCount: 4
a:
score: 5
elementCount: 1
result: 8
regex:
wordCount: 74
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.9 | 4 | 0 |
@whilefoo Could you please also have a look? | 0content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 8
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.2 | 4 | 0 |
@0x4007 It is hard to do a clear QA because it depends on a pull… | 5content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
a:
score: 5
elementCount: 1
result: 5
regex:
wordCount: 38
wordValue: 0
result: 0
| 0.5 | 4 | 0 |
[ 0.49 WXDAI ]
@ishowvel
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Comment | 1 | 0.49 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Priority | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Is this task up for grabs or is @jordan-ae still working on it | 0.94content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 14
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.94
| 0.5 | 4 | 0.49 |
[ 0.02 WXDAI ]
@jordan-ae
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Comment | 1 | 0.02 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Priority | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Still working on it trying to get test pass. Giving me a bit of … | 1.06content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 16
wordValue: 0.1
result: 1.06
| 0 | 4 | 0.02 |
[ 3.142 WXDAI ]
@Keyrxng
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Comment | 1 | 3.142 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Priority | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
This has a big chance of not performing well as a worker with th… | 3.69content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 4
ul:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
li:
score: 0.5
elementCount: 2
result: 1
regex:
wordCount: 48
wordValue: 0.1
result: 2.69
| 0.8 | 4 | 3.142 |
[ 183 WXDAI ]
@whilefoo
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | Specification | 1 | 183 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Priority | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The original implementation allowed for productive contributors … | 15.25content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 11
em:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
a:
score: 5
elementCount: 1
result: 5
regex:
wordCount: 232
wordValue: 0.1
result: 10.25
| 1 | 4 | 183 |
[ 7.392 WXDAI ]
@0x4007
Contributions Overview
| View | Contribution | Count | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review | Comment | 4 | 7.392 |
Conversation Incentives
| Comment | Formatting | Relevance | Priority | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Code looks fine I just wish the QA was more clear. | 0.77content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 11
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.77
| 0.2 | 4 | 0.616 |
This description isn't very clear. Given the specification, I gu… | 2content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 34
wordValue: 0.1
result: 2
| 0.8 | 4 | 6.4 |
Your QA isn't clear can you list the three scenarios and their o… | 0.94content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 14
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.94
| 0.1 | 4 | 0.376 |
Then let's test in prod | 0.46content:
content:
p:
score: 0
elementCount: 1
result: 0
regex:
wordCount: 6
wordValue: 0.1
result: 0.46
| 0 | 4 | 0 |
|
@0x4007 Maybe we should remove the |
|
I am not sure because it's hard to compensate for research required to author good specifications but 1. We should still limit to the assignee reward amount and 2. I wish that I received the credit since I'm the original author! I think generally the order from highest to lowest for major contributions to completing projects should be
|
|
@0x4007 There was a spec for splitting with the original post: ubiquity-os-marketplace/text-conversation-rewards#74 so I could have been split. |
Originally posted by @0x4007 in #19 (comment)
For the sake of this conversation a completed PR is when the conditions are met in the above table.
In the current state the code checks if any review is approved or if there is 0 reviews but 24 hours have passed since the creation of the PR, however it doesn't check if there's any requested changes so it will count it as completed even if there 1 approve and 1 requested changes.
There is still a problem when the reviewer requests changes and the contributor resolves those changes but waits for the reviewer to make a new review so they can't start another task.
There's two possible solutions: check if the reviewer was requested more than x hours ago or check that changes have been marked as solved
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: