🐛 Code Review: Use proportional scoring #2882
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com>
raghavkaul
requested review from
azeemshaikh38,
justaugustus,
laurentsimon,
naveensrinivasan and
spencerschrock
as code owners
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2882 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 58.89%
=======================================
Files ? 139
Lines ? 11154
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 6569
Misses ? 4185
Partials ? 400 |
|
Isn't this the fix for #2812? |
|
@naveensrinivasan Yes! Typo - fixed. |
2 tasks
Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com>
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com>
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is the desired scoring scheme, I think this PR looks good, but I think we should agree on the scoring though before merging as it seems like Azeem had different ideas in #2450 around if unreviewed bot PRs should be weighed differently.
I think the two approaches were:
- This sort of leveled scoring where an unreviewed bot PR drops the score to 7
- Just ignore reviewed (dependa)bot PRs to address the original problem in Wrong Scorecards result in CodeReview check due to Dependabot/RenovateBot PR reviews #2450, but otherwise use the same reviewed / total scoring we used before.
score = reviewed human / (reviewed human + any unreviewed )
I think there's value in the simplicity of 2, as we've had a few accidental scoring situations coding up this implementation. But ultimately I think we can come up with hypothetical "what if" scoring situations either way.
|
Stale pull request message |
Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <8695110+raghavkaul@users.noreply.github.com>
raghavkaul
had a problem deploying
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Failure
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
raghavkaul
had a problem deploying
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Failure
Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com>
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
raghavkaul
had a problem deploying
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Failure
Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com>
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
spencerschrock
approved these changes
Jun 13, 2023
raghavkaul
temporarily deployed
to
integration-test
GitHub Actions
Inactive
2 tasks
ashearin
pushed a commit
to kgangerlm/scorecard-gitlab
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2023
* Code Review: Use proportional scoring Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * address cr comments Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * revert repo_client.go Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * update * exclude bot PRs from scoring * missing import from merge Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * update * changeset.Unknown Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * address pr comments Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * set field Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * fix unittests Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> * update Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> --------- Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <raghavkaul@google.com> Signed-off-by: Raghav Kaul <8695110+raghavkaul@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Allen Shearin <allen.p.shearin@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Revert Code-Review check to proportional scoring.
What is the current behavior?
Currently, Code-Review works like this:
If the only commit activity is by bots, we return inconclusively
If any number of bot code changes are unreviewed, the score drops 3 points
If ==1 human change is unreviewed, the score drops by 7 points
If >1 human change is unreviewed, the score drops to 0
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**
This takes Code-Review back to proportional scoring
If the only commit activity is by bots, we return inconclusively
If there is human and bot commit activity, but only bot commits are unreviewed, the score drops by 3 points
If all bot commits are reviewed, the score is based on the proportion of human commits that are unreviewed
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
Fixes #2812 .
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?