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

Modify issue template to accommodate new tabular format #585

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 17, 2020
Merged

Modify issue template to accommodate new tabular format #585

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 17, 2020

Conversation

m52go
Copy link

@m52go m52go commented Jun 16, 2020

To streamline budgeting. The proposed template is virtually identical to the one proposed a short while ago. Only differences are updated wiki links and minor wording tweaks.

As discussed here:
bisq-network/projects#32

And documented here:
https://bisq.wiki/Compensation#Ensure_your_request_is_valid

@m52go m52go requested review from cbeams and MwithM June 16, 2020 04:28
Copy link
Contributor

@cbeams cbeams left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NACK, just a a few nits to resolve, see review comments.

Note that I've updated the parsed:* labels to link to their associated documentation in the wiki, as we do with other process-oriented labels.

Also, can someone refer me to a test issue where linting/parsing failed? I haven't seen this for myself yet.

ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

## Roles performed
Example 2 - role (note the asterisk):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is the significance of the asterisk?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No significance to the bot, it ignores any asterisk after the team name.

Copy link
Author

@m52go m52go Jun 16, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah the bot currently ignores it, but its purpose is to mark line-items for roles (so that they can be distinguished from regular work-delivered line-items).

I figure this will be useful when we start aggregating qualitative assessments of issuance. Role contributions can be thought of as the project's 'overhead', and tracking the proportion of overhead in relation to overall issuance could be useful.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, I think that without further change, people won't get that they should mark role entries with an asterisk. It's just too subtle / not explicit enough here. But I wouldn't personally hold up the merge on it at this point. If it's something that people should do, I'd recommend saying that clearly.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Addressed with 1b94f34. Will probably still need to remind people, lead by example, etc., but role owners are mostly core/active contributors so it should be ok.

@@ -1,25 +1,59 @@
<!--
Compensation requests have a specific format that enables them to be parsed programmatically for more efficient budgeting. Please make sure you stick to the template. A linter will evaluate your request after you remove [WIP] from the issue title and notify you of any issues.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

'linter' is used here, 'parser' is used below. Might be best to use a single term, since it is a single bot doing the work.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

True but there are 2 processes -- linting before voting and then parsing after voting, which is why 2 terms were used. But I agree a consistent term would probably be clearer for users so I've changed it.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 16, 2020

Also, can someone refer me to a test issue where linting/parsing failed? I haven't seen this for myself yet.

https://github.com/jmacxx/bisq-bot/issues/2

m52go added 2 commits June 16, 2020 11:21
Also mention that contributions table includes roles performed.
-->
- **BSQ requested**: **`[BSQ amount]`** <!-- [BSQ amount] should be: USD amount / BSQ rate -->
- USD requested: [USD amount] <!-- [USD amount] should be: total of all contributions listed in "contributions delivered" table below -->
- BSQ rate: [rate] USD per BSQ <!-- [rate] should be the rate used to determine the BSQ amount above, as specified in the cycle's rate announcement (https://bisq.wiki/Compensation_Maintainer#Announce_BSQ-USD_rate) -->

Copy link
Contributor

@MwithM MwithM Jun 17, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
- Previous compensation request: # <!-- Link to last compensation request submitted -->

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jmacxx would such a change require any modifications to bot code?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see any impact to the bot by that change. Presumably the user would link back to their previous compensation request.

@cbeams cbeams assigned m52go and ghost Jun 17, 2020
@cbeams cbeams merged commit 93de129 into bisq-network:master Jun 17, 2020
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.

3 participants