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

chore: update meetings.json and newsrooom_videos.json #3461

Merged

Conversation

asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot commented Dec 10, 2024

Automated changes by create-pull-request GitHub action

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Added a new bug report related to voting summary errors.
  • Updates

    • Updated an existing entry regarding tests for markdown scripts.
  • Removals

    • Removed an entry related to Open Graph link preview image.
    • Removed an entry concerning consistency in terminology.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 10, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request primarily involve updates to the dashboard.json file, specifically in the hotDiscussions and goodFirstIssues sections. An entry in hotDiscussions has been removed and replaced with a new entry, while another entry has been modified. In goodFirstIssues, a new entry has been added, and an existing entry has been removed. The overall structure of the JSON file remains unchanged.

Changes

File Change Summary
dashboard.json - Removed entry: ID I_kwDODou01c5BZZv-, Title: "Open Graph link preview image according to the document to open".
- Added entry: ID I_kwDOFLhIt86ihL5I, Title: "[BUG] voting summary has some errors in isVotedInLast3Months".
- Updated entry: ID changed from PR_kwDOBW5R_c59FBoR to PR_kwDOBW5R_c6BZLuT, Title changed from "feat: add tests for tool-object script" to "feat: add tests for check markdown script".
- Removed entry: ID I_kwDOBGu-185qGt6A, Title: "Ensure consistency when using either Application or API terms".

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

autoapproved, autoupdate

Suggested reviewers

  • derberg
  • akshatnema
  • magicmatatjahu
  • anshgoyalevil
  • Mayaleeeee
  • devilkiller-ag
  • sambhavgupta0705
  • asyncapi-bot-eve

Poem

🐇 In the dashboard, changes bloom,
New entries rise, old ones zoom.
Hot discussions, fresh and bright,
Good first issues take their flight.
A rabbit's hop, a joyful cheer,
Updates here bring us near! 🌼


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Experiment)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

netlify bot commented Dec 10, 2024

Deploy Preview for asyncapi-website ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 416bc48
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/asyncapi-website/deploys/67578dfa5cffe80008afa3e3
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-3461--asyncapi-website.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 10, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.22%. Comparing base (22fcbcf) to head (416bc48).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3461   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.22%   77.22%           
=======================================
  Files          21       21           
  Lines         663      663           
=======================================
  Hits          512      512           
  Misses        151      151           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor Author

⚡️ Lighthouse report for the changes in this PR:

Category Score
🔴 Performance 35
🟢 Accessibility 98
🟢 Best practices 92
🟢 SEO 100
🔴 PWA 33

Lighthouse ran on https://deploy-preview-3461--asyncapi-website.netlify.app/

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
dashboard.json (1)

Line range hint 1-800: Consider implementing pagination for large data sets.

The file contains a significant amount of data. Consider implementing pagination or data segmentation to improve performance and maintainability.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 22fcbcf and 416bc48.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • dashboard.json (4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
dashboard.json (5)

20-28: LGTM: New PR entry is well-structured.

The new PR entry follows the correct schema with all required fields (id, isPR, title, author, etc.) and maintains consistent formatting.


51-59: LGTM: Updated PR entry maintains data integrity.

The updated PR entry preserves the required structure while updating the relevant fields (id, title, resourcePath, score).


199-213: LGTM: New good-first-issue entry is properly formatted.

The new issue entry for the voting summary bug follows the correct schema and includes appropriate labels.


630-633: LGTM: Label structure is consistent.

The label update maintains the required name/color structure.


145-176: Verify the score calculation for newly added entries.

The newly added entries appear to have scores that affect their position in the list. Please ensure the scoring algorithm is consistently applied.

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the scoring calculation by examining the codebase for the scoring logic.


Based on the search results, I found the score calculation logic in scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js. Let me examine the specific implementation more closely.


Now I can provide the final response based on the verification of the scoring implementation:

The score calculation is consistently applied across all entries

The scoring formula finalInteractionsCount / (monthsSince(discussion.timelineItems.updatedAt) + 2) ** 1.8 is applied uniformly to all entries. The scores in the dashboard.json file follow a natural decay pattern, with newer and more active discussions having higher scores (34.46 to 14.07), which is expected given the time-decay factor in the formula.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for score calculation consistency across entries

# Extract and sort scores to analyze distribution
jq -r '.hotDiscussions[] | .score' dashboard.json | sort -nr | head -n 5

Length of output: 167


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for files containing score calculation logic
rg -l "score" --type ts --type js

# Look for specific score calculation implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'function $FUNC($$$) {
  $$$
  score
  $$$
}'

# Also search for any score-related constants or configurations
rg "score" -A 5 -B 5

Length of output: 16803


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the complete score calculation implementation
cat scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js | grep -A 10 -B 10 "score:"

Length of output: 792

@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot merged commit 7f81142 into master Dec 10, 2024
34 checks passed
@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot deleted the update-meetings/22fcbcf133b95f2cfba3da4c7494a3259f511cf2 branch December 10, 2024 00:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants