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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Penalty & Blame For Broken Features #758

Open
0x4007 opened this issue Sep 12, 2023 · 14 comments · May be fixed by #778
Open

Penalty & Blame For Broken Features #758

0x4007 opened this issue Sep 12, 2023 · 14 comments · May be fixed by #778
Labels
Price: 600 USD Priority: 2 (Medium) Time: <1 Week

Comments

@0x4007
Copy link
Member

0x4007 commented Sep 12, 2023 •
edited

Context

Sometimes features that were paid-for and implemented break in the future (for any reason.) For the bot to understand what happened, it is expected that the original issue describing the feature is re-opened.

It would be epic to see the diff from the pull request and compare it to the current working version of the code (main branch, configurable.)

Proposal

If any of the original assignee's code was changed from the time it was approved to the current production version (using diff this should be easy to see) then the blame should no longer be on the original assignee.

Instead, those who modified the lines of code since the approved commit should be blamed for breaking the feature.

In this case, the bot should:

  1. Not apply a penalty to the original assignee and explain why.
  2. Leave a comment on the re-opened issue and explain, in detail, which lines of code were changed, which pull requests (or at least commits) and by who (tag them in a list.)
  3. We can let repository maintainers chase down those tagged members to see who will be responsible to fix.

In the Future

  1. This could be an interesting place to punish the approving reviewers of those pull requests, but that will probably be part of a new specification.
  2. We might be able to use ChatGPT to compare all those diffs and see which one is most likely to have broken the feature, then suggest that they are the assignee to fix the problem.

@pavlovcik i noticed this is a penalty.. It's been a long time since I worked on this issue

Originally posted by @seprintour in #260 (comment)
@0x4007 0x4007 changed the title Penalty Enhancement Penalty & Blame For Broken Features Sep 12, 2023
@ubiquibot ubiquibot bot mentioned this issue Sep 12, 2023
Closed
@Keyrxng
Copy link
Contributor

Keyrxng commented Sep 13, 2023

/start

@ubiquibot
Copy link

ubiquibot bot commented Sep 13, 2023

Too many assigned issues, you have reached your max of 2

@Keyrxng
Copy link
Contributor

Keyrxng commented Sep 13, 2023

@pavlovcik I'd love to take this.

  • It's not too far off from /review
  • Why build up into gpt usage when it could be used now and refined?
  • If a non-gpt first iteration is preferred, it'd be hoping to jump onto the gpt issue so why not take on part I first

@ubiquibot
Copy link

ubiquibot bot commented Sep 13, 2023

@Keyrxng The time limit for this bounty is on Wed, 20 Sep 2023 20:28:01 UTC

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 13, 2023 •
edited

  • No OpenAI required for the first version.
  • I think that non-AI features are far easier to test. So let's definitely implement without OpenAI first.
  • This just requires looking at who made line changes to any of the lines in the approved and merged PR. This is easy to verify without the use of an LLM.

@Keyrxng
Copy link
Contributor

Keyrxng commented Sep 13, 2023

I think that non-AI features are far easier to test.

Hands down!

Alright leave it with me, appreciated dude

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 13, 2023

Thanks for your enthusiasm

@Keyrxng Keyrxng linked a pull request Sep 17, 2023 that will close this issue
Open
@ubiquibot
Copy link

ubiquibot bot commented Sep 17, 2023

Do you have any updates @Keyrxng? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop
Last activity time: Wed Sep 13 2023 20:33:29 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 18, 2023

It doesn't pick up on drafts yet so please add an update here @Keyrxng

@Keyrxng
Copy link
Contributor

Keyrxng commented Sep 18, 2023

draft pushed with requested changes to make: 30-50% complete

@ubiquibot
Copy link

ubiquibot bot commented Sep 22, 2023

Do you have any updates @Keyrxng? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop
Last activity time: Mon Sep 18 2023 07:09:45 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

@Keyrxng
Copy link
Contributor

Keyrxng commented Sep 22, 2023

should be about ready for review later tonight

@ubiquibot
Copy link

ubiquibot bot commented Sep 26, 2023

Do you have any updates @Keyrxng? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop
Last activity time: Fri Sep 22 2023 09:38:24 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

@ubiquibot ubiquibot bot unassigned Keyrxng Sep 29, 2023
@ubiquibot
Copy link

ubiquibot bot commented Sep 29, 2023

@Keyrxng - Releasing the bounty back to dev pool because the allocated duration already ended!
Last activity time: Fri Sep 22 2023 09:38:24 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

@korrrba-bot korrrba-bot bot mentioned this issue Nov 6, 2023
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Price: 600 USD Priority: 2 (Medium) Time: <1 Week
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Blame Keyrxng/ubiquibot
2 participants
@0x4007 @Keyrxng