Feature: Correlation Between Lead Time and Pull Request Size #54
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces substantial modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (18)
src/converters/utils/calculations/calcPRsize.ts (2)
1-8: Add JSDoc documentation explaining the PR size calculationThis function implements an important metric for PR size calculation, but lacks documentation explaining the formula and the purpose of the deletion coefficient.
Add comprehensive documentation:
import { deletionCoefficient } from "./constants"; +/** + * Calculates the size of a pull request based on the number of additions and deletions. + * The formula weights deletions differently from additions using a coefficient to better + * reflect the actual complexity and review effort required. + * + * @param additions - The number of lines added in the PR + * @param deletions - The number of lines deleted in the PR + * @returns A numerical value representing the PR size + * + * @example + * calcPRsize(100, 50) // returns 100 + (50 * 0.2) = 110 + */ export const calcPRsize = (
1-8: Add unit tests for the PR size calculationThe PR objectives mention that tests were not added. This utility function is critical for the PR size correlation feature and should be thoroughly tested.
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive unit tests covering:
- Basic addition/deletion calculations
- Edge cases (undefined inputs, zero values)
- Negative value handling
- Coefficient application accuracy
src/converters/utils/calculations/getPullRequestSize.ts (1)
Line range hint
10-24: Consider documenting size thresholds.The size thresholds (50, 200, 400, 700) play a crucial role in PR categorization. Consider adding documentation explaining the rationale behind these thresholds and their impact on lead time correlation analysis.
export const getPullRequestSize = ( additions: number | undefined, deletions: number | undefined ): PullRequestSize => { + // Size thresholds based on weighted sum of additions and deletions: + // xs: ≤50 - Very small changes like typo fixes + // s: ≤200 - Small feature changes or bug fixes + // m: ≤400 - Medium-sized features or multiple bug fixes + // l: ≤700 - Large features or significant refactoring + // xl: >700 - Very large changes that might need special attention const size = calcPRsize(additions, deletions);src/converters/utils/calculations/index.ts (1)
13-13: Consider documenting the coefficient's purpose.Since
deletionCoefficientis used in PR size calculations, it would be helpful to document its purpose and impact on the size calculation formula in the constants file.Would you like me to help generate the documentation for the constant?
src/view/utils/createConfigParamsCode.ts (1)
Line range hint
6-41: Consider grouping related configuration parameters.The configuration parameters could be organized into logical groups for better maintainability. For example:
- Repository/Organization settings
- Time-related settings
- Display/UI settings
- Filtering settings
Consider applying this grouping:
${[ // Repository settings "GITHUB_OWNERS_REPOS", "ORGANIZATIONS", "GITHUB_OWNER_FOR_ISSUE", "GITHUB_REPO_FOR_ISSUE", // Time settings "REVIEW_TIME_INTERVALS", "APPROVAL_TIME_INTERVALS", "MERGE_TIME_INTERVALS", "TIMEZONE", "CORE_HOURS_START", "CORE_HOURS_END", "HOLIDAYS", "REPORT_PERIOD", "REPORT_DATE_START", "REPORT_DATE_END", // Display settings "SHOW_STATS_TYPES", "SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS", "USE_CHARTS", "TOP_LIST_AMOUNT", // Filtering settings "ASSIGNEES", "LABELS", "HIDE_USERS", "SHOW_USERS", "INCLUDE_LABELS", "EXCLUDE_LABELS", // Other settings "AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS", "PERCENTILE", "AMOUNT", "PERIOD_SPLIT_UNIT", "EXECUTION_OUTCOME", "ISSUE_NUMBER", ]src/view/utils/createDependencyMarkdown.ts (1)
7-11: Add JSDoc documentation for better maintainabilityWhile the types are well-defined, adding JSDoc documentation would improve maintainability by explaining:
- The purpose of the function
- The expected structure of the
dataparameter- The format requirements for
users- The impact of
referenceson the outputExample improvement:
+/** + * Creates a markdown string containing dependency charts for user data + * @param data - Nested record of collections containing user statistics + * @param users - Array of user IDs to generate charts for + * @param references - Optional array of reference links to include + * @returns Markdown string containing charts and references + */ export const createDependencyMarkdown = (src/view/utils/constants.ts (1)
10-11: Consider using full words instead of abbreviations.While the constants are functionally correct and align with the PR objectives to track unreviewed and unapproved PRs, consider using "without" instead of "w/o" for better clarity:
-export const unreviewedPrsHeader = "PRs w/o review"; -export const unapprovedPrsHeader = "PRs w/o approval"; +export const unreviewedPrsHeader = "PRs without review"; +export const unapprovedPrsHeader = "PRs without approval";src/view/utils/createSizeDependencyXYChart.ts (4)
1-5: Consider enhancing type safety for size categoriesThe
sizesarray could benefit from being defined as a union type or enum to ensure type safety throughout the codebase.+type PRSize = "xs" | "s" | "m" | "l" | "xl"; -const sizes = ["xs", "s", "m", "l", "xl"]; +const sizes: PRSize[] = ["xs", "s", "m", "l", "xl"];
7-11: Consider simplifying the data structureThe nested Record type
Record<string, Record<string, Collection>>suggests a complex data structure that might be difficult to maintain. Consider creating a dedicated interface to represent this structure more explicitly.interface UserStats { [userId: string]: { [category: string]: Collection; }; }
13-15: Simplify title construction logicThe title construction logic is complex and could be simplified for better readability.
- title: `Pull request's time/size graph(${ - type === "percentile" ? parseInt(getValueAsIs("PERCENTILE")) : "" - }${type === "percentile" ? "th " : ""}${type}) ${user}`, + title: createChartTitle(type, user), +function createChartTitle(type: StatsType, user: string): string { + const percentile = type === "percentile" ? `${parseInt(getValueAsIs("PERCENTILE"))}th ` : ""; + return `Pull request's time/size graph(${percentile}${type}) ${user}`; +}
7-75: Add unit tests for the chart creation utilityThe PR objectives mention that tests were not added. This utility function would benefit from unit tests to verify:
- Correct calculation of time conversions
- Proper handling of null/undefined values in the data structure
- Accurate chart configuration generation
Would you like me to help create unit tests for this utility function?
src/view/utils/createTotalTable.ts (1)
57-57: Consider documenting the new metrics in the description.While the PR size calculation is well documented, consider adding explanations for the new "unreviewed" and "unapproved" metrics to help users understand these columns.
- "**Reviews conducted** - number of reviews conducted. 1 PR may have only single review.\n**PR Size** - determined using the formula: `additions + deletions * 0.2`. Based on this calculation: 0-50: xs, 51-200: s, 201-400: m, 401-700: l, 701+: xl\n**Total reverted PRs** - The number of reverted PRs based on the branch name pattern `/^revert-d+/`. This pattern is used for reverts made via GitHub.", + "**Reviews conducted** - number of reviews conducted. 1 PR may have only single review.\n**Unreviewed PRs** - number of PRs that haven't received any reviews.\n**Unapproved PRs** - number of PRs that haven't received approval.\n**PR Size** - determined using the formula: `additions + deletions * 0.2`. Based on this calculation: 0-50: xs, 51-200: s, 201-400: m, 401-700: l, 701+: xl\n**Total reverted PRs** - The number of reverted PRs based on the branch name pattern `/^revert-d+/`. This pattern is used for reverts made via GitHub.",src/converters/types.ts (2)
53-54: LGTM! Consider future extensibility.The new optional properties align well with the PR objectives for tracking unreviewed and unapproved PRs. The implementation is type-safe and consistent with existing patterns.
Consider creating a separate interface for tracking metrics in the future if more tracking properties are added, to keep the Collection type manageable:
interface TrackingMetrics { unreviewed?: number; unapproved?: number; // future metrics } type Collection = { tracking?: TrackingMetrics; // other properties }
86-108: LGTM! Consider extracting reusable types.The structure effectively captures size-based metrics with proper typing for both raw data and statistical calculations. However, the nested structure could be more maintainable if broken down into smaller, reusable types.
Consider extracting the repeated time metric types into separate interfaces:
interface TimeMetrics { timeToApprove?: number; timeToReview?: number; timeToMerge?: number; } interface SizeMetrics { timeToApprove: number[]; timeToReview: number[]; timeToMerge: number[]; percentile: TimeMetrics; average: TimeMetrics; median: TimeMetrics; } type Collection = { // ...other properties sizes?: Record<string, SizeMetrics>; }This refactoring would:
- Reduce repetition in the type definition
- Make it easier to maintain consistent time metric properties
- Allow reuse of these types in other parts of the codebase
src/createOutput.ts (2)
61-61: Consider using boolean configuration value.The string comparison
=== "true"for configuration is error-prone and inconsistent with boolean configuration patterns.Consider using a boolean value:
-if (getValueAsIs("SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS") === "true") { +const showCorrelationGraphs = getValueAsIs("SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS") === "true"; +if (showCorrelationGraphs) {
61-77: Consider extracting comment creation logic to reduce duplication.The correlation graphs feature follows a similar pattern to the timeline comparison feature above it. Consider extracting the common pattern to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
Consider creating a utility function:
async function createCommentFromMarkdown( issueNumber: number, markdown: string, title: string ): Promise<{ comment: any; title: string }> { const comment = await octokit.rest.issues.createComment({ repo: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_REPO_FOR_ISSUE"), owner: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_OWNER_FOR_ISSUE"), issue_number: issueNumber, body: markdown, }); return { comment, title }; }Then use it for both timeline and correlation graphs:
if (monthComparison) { comments.push( await createCommentFromMarkdown( issue.data.number, monthComparison, "retrospective timeline" ) ); } if (showCorrelationGraphs) { const dependencyMarkdown = createDependencyMarkdown(/*...*/); if (dependencyMarkdown) { comments.push( await createCommentFromMarkdown( issue.data.number, dependencyMarkdown, "Correlation Graphs" ) ); } }src/converters/utils/preparePullRequestStats.ts (1)
37-60: Improve code readability and maintainability.The current implementation could be improved in several ways:
- Use destructuring in the reducer parameters
- Extract the metrics calculation into a separate function
- Use more descriptive variable names
Consider refactoring to:
- sizes: Object.entries(collection?.sizes || {}).reduce( - (acc, el) => ({ - ...acc, - [el[0]]: { - ...acc[el[0]], - percentile: { - timeToReview: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview), - timeToApprove: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove), - timeToMerge: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge), - }, - median: { - timeToReview: calcMedianValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview), - timeToApprove: calcMedianValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove), - timeToMerge: calcMedianValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge), - }, - average: { - timeToReview: calcAverageValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview), - timeToApprove: calcAverageValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove), - timeToMerge: calcAverageValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge), - }, - }, - }), - collection?.sizes || {} - ), + const calculateMetrics = (data: typeof collection.sizes[string]) => ({ + percentile: { + timeToReview: calcPercentileValue(data?.timeToReview), + timeToApprove: calcPercentileValue(data?.timeToApprove), + timeToMerge: calcPercentileValue(data?.timeToMerge), + }, + median: { + timeToReview: calcMedianValue(data?.timeToReview), + timeToApprove: calcMedianValue(data?.timeToApprove), + timeToMerge: calcMedianValue(data?.timeToMerge), + }, + average: { + timeToReview: calcAverageValue(data?.timeToReview), + timeToApprove: calcAverageValue(data?.timeToApprove), + timeToMerge: calcAverageValue(data?.timeToMerge), + }, + }); + + sizes: Object.entries(collection?.sizes || {}).reduce( + (acc, [size, data]) => ({ + ...acc, + [size]: { + ...data, + ...calculateMetrics(data), + }, + }), + collection?.sizes || {} + ),🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 39-39: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
src/converters/utils/preparePullRequestTimeline.ts (1)
118-141: Refactor 'sizes' object construction for better readabilityThe nested ternary operations and spread syntax in the
sizesobject construction make the code difficult to read and maintain. Consider refactoring to improve clarity and reduce complexity.For example, you can abstract the repetitive logic into a helper function:
const addTimeMetric = (metricName, timeValue) => { return timeValue !== undefined && timeValue !== null ? [ ...(collection?.sizes?.[pullRequestSize]?.[metricName] || []), timeValue, ] : collection?.sizes?.[pullRequestSize]?.[metricName]; }; sizes: { ...(collection.sizes || {}), [pullRequestSize]: { ...(collection.sizes?.[pullRequestSize] || {}), timeToReview: addTimeMetric('timeToReview', timeToReview), timeToApprove: addTimeMetric('timeToApprove', timeToApprove), timeToMerge: addTimeMetric('timeToMerge', timeToMerge), }, },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
README.mdis excluded by none and included by noneaction.ymlis excluded by none and included by nonebuild/index.jsis excluded by!build/**and included by nonepackage.jsonis excluded by none and included by none
📒 Files selected for processing (16)
src/converters/types.ts(2 hunks)src/converters/utils/calculations/calcPRsize.ts(1 hunks)src/converters/utils/calculations/constants.ts(1 hunks)src/converters/utils/calculations/getPullRequestSize.ts(1 hunks)src/converters/utils/calculations/index.ts(1 hunks)src/converters/utils/preparePullRequestStats.ts(1 hunks)src/converters/utils/preparePullRequestTimeline.ts(5 hunks)src/createOutput.ts(2 hunks)src/view/utils/constants.ts(1 hunks)src/view/utils/createConfigParamsCode.ts(1 hunks)src/view/utils/createDependencyMarkdown.ts(1 hunks)src/view/utils/createReviewTable.ts(1 hunks)src/view/utils/createSizeDependencyXYChart.ts(1 hunks)src/view/utils/createTimelineMonthComparisonChart.ts(1 hunks)src/view/utils/createTotalTable.ts(3 hunks)src/view/utils/index.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/converters/utils/calculations/constants.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
src/converters/utils/preparePullRequestStats.ts
[error] 39-39: Avoid the use of spread (...) syntax on accumulators.
Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in .reduce) because it causes a time complexity of O(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.
(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
🔇 Additional comments (17)
src/converters/utils/calculations/calcPRsize.ts (1)
1-8: Verify the deletion coefficient value's impact
The deletion coefficient of 0.2 significantly reduces the weight of deletions in the PR size calculation. Let's verify this aligns with your team's needs.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the PR size categorization to better understand the impact of the deletion coefficient.
Let me check the documentation to understand if there's any rationale provided for the deletion coefficient value.
The deletion coefficient of 0.2 is appropriate for this codebase
The documentation and usage patterns show that this PR size calculation is used for categorizing PRs into size buckets (xs/s/m/l/xl) for analytics purposes. The lower weight for deletions (0.2) is actually beneficial because:
- The correlation graphs in the documentation show that even smaller PRs (xs/s) have meaningful review times, suggesting the current size categorization is working well for analysis.
- The workload stats across multiple months show a good distribution of PR sizes, with most PRs falling into xs/s categories, which is a healthy pattern.
- The formula helps prevent large-scale deletions (like removing deprecated code) from artificially inflating PR sizes and skewing the analytics.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze the impact of the deletion coefficient on PR sizes
# Find the constant definition
echo "Current deletion coefficient:"
rg "deletionCoefficient.*=.*0\.2" -A 2
# Find existing PR size calculations to understand typical values
echo "\nCurrent usage in codebase:"
rg "calcPRsize\(.*\)" -A 2
Length of output: 631
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the complete PR size categorization logic
echo "PR size categorization logic:"
rg -A 10 "const size = calcPRsize"
# Look for any tests or documentation about PR size calculation
echo "\nTests or documentation about PR size:"
rg -l "PR size|pull request size" --type md
rg -l "test.*PR.*size|test.*calcPR" --type ts
Length of output: 1155
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check documentation for any mention of deletion coefficient or PR size calculation
echo "Documentation about PR size calculation:"
cat README.md examples/periodReport.md examples/nPRsReport.md | grep -A 5 -B 5 "size\|deletion"
# Get the complete PR size calculation logic file
echo "\nComplete PR size calculation implementation:"
cat src/converters/utils/calculations/getPullRequestSize.ts
Length of output: 21626
src/converters/utils/calculations/getPullRequestSize.ts (2)
1-2: LGTM! Good separation of concerns.
The extraction of size calculation logic into a separate utility function improves code maintainability and reusability.
9-9: Verify the impact of the coefficient change.
The change from 0.5 to 0.2 for the deletion coefficient in calcPRsize significantly affects how deletions contribute to the PR size calculation. This could impact PR size categorization and consequently affect metrics and correlations.
✅ Verification successful
Impact of deletion coefficient change is limited and well-defined
The change from 0.5 to 0.2 for the deletion coefficient has a clear and contained impact:
- It affects the raw size points calculation (
calcPRsize) which weighs deletions at 0.2x instead of 0.5x - These size points are used to categorize PRs into fixed size buckets (xs: ≤50, s: ≤200, m: ≤400, l: ≤700, xl: >700)
- The only visualization using raw size points is the total table sorting, which is a non-critical display order
The change makes deletions count less towards the total size, which better reflects that deletions often require less review effort than additions. The fixed size thresholds remain unchanged, providing stable categorization boundaries.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze the impact of coefficient change on PR size categorization
# Look for patterns of PR size usage in the codebase to understand potential impacts
# Find files using PR size categories
echo "Files potentially affected by PR size changes:"
rg -l "xs\"|s\"|m\"|l\"|xl\""
# Look for size-based logic or metrics
echo "\nSize-based logic or metrics:"
rg -A 3 "getPullRequestSize|calcPRsize"
# Check for any size-based configurations
echo "\nSize-based configurations:"
fd -e json -e yaml -e yml -e config | xargs rg "size|threshold"
Length of output: 12483
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's analyze the specific implementation and usage of the PR size calculation
# Check the implementation of calcPRsize and its coefficient
echo "PR size calculation implementation:"
cat src/converters/utils/calculations/calcPRsize.ts
# Check the size thresholds and categorization
echo -e "\nPR size categorization logic:"
cat src/converters/utils/calculations/getPullRequestSize.ts
# Check where size points are used in visualization/reporting
echo -e "\nSize points usage in visualization:"
rg -A 3 "sizePoints" src/view/
# Check if there are any size-based configurations or thresholds
echo -e "\nSize configurations:"
cat src/converters/utils/calculations/constants.ts
Length of output: 1583
src/converters/utils/calculations/index.ts (1)
13-13: LGTM! Verify the usage of deletionCoefficient.
The export addition is clean and well-organized. Let's verify its usage in the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Export is correctly used in PR size calculations
The deletionCoefficient is properly imported and used in calcPRsize.ts to weight deletions differently (0.2x) when calculating PR size. The constant is well-organized within the calculations module and its usage aligns with the PR's objectives.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of deletionCoefficient constant
# Expected: Should be used in PR size calculations
# Check for imports of deletionCoefficient
rg -l "import.*deletionCoefficient.*from.*calculations"
# Check for direct usage of deletionCoefficient
rg "deletionCoefficient" --type ts
Length of output: 488
src/view/utils/createConfigParamsCode.ts (1)
20-20: LGTM! The new configuration parameter aligns with the PR objective.
The addition of "SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS" follows the existing naming convention and integrates well with the configuration generation logic.
src/view/utils/createDependencyMarkdown.ts (2)
1-5: LGTM! Well-organized imports
The imports are logically organized and all appear to be necessary for the function's implementation.
23-23: LGTM! Clean output construction
The output construction is clean and handles whitespace appropriately.
src/view/utils/index.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM! The new export aligns with PR objectives.
The addition of createDependencyMarkdown follows the established patterns and naming conventions while supporting the new correlation graph feature.
1-1: Verify the implementation of createDependencyMarkdown
Let's verify the implementation of the newly exported function to ensure it properly handles the correlation graph generation.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the implementation details of createDependencyMarkdown.
Implementation of createDependencyMarkdown is properly handling correlation graph generation
The implementation correctly:
- Filters users with sufficient data points (more than 1 size category)
- Creates XY charts showing time/size correlations for review, approval, and merge times
- Handles different aggregation methods (mean, median, percentile)
- Properly formats the output with references and charts
- Converts time values from minutes to hours with appropriate rounding
- Uses consistent color coding (gold, chartreuse, blueviolet) for different metrics
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the implementation and usage of createDependencyMarkdown
# Check the implementation
echo "Checking createDependencyMarkdown implementation:"
ast-grep --pattern 'export function createDependencyMarkdown' -A 10
# Check its usage in createOutput
echo -e "\nChecking usage in createOutput:"
rg "createDependencyMarkdown" -A 5
# Verify the SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS parameter handling
echo -e "\nChecking correlation graphs parameter handling:"
rg "SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS" -A 5
Length of output: 10242
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the full implementation of createDependencyMarkdown
cat src/view/utils/createDependencyMarkdown.ts
# Check the implementation of related utility functions
echo -e "\nChecking createSizeDependencyXYChart implementation:"
cat src/view/utils/createSizeDependencyXYChart.ts
Length of output: 3110
src/view/utils/createTimelineMonthComparisonChart.ts (1)
30-36: LGTM! The updated filtering logic aligns with PR objectives.
The modified date filtering now correctly handles PRs in different stages of the review process by including dates where any timing metric is present. This change supports the PR's goal of better tracking PRs without reviews or approvals.
Let's verify the impact of this change on the chart visualization:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response:
The updated filtering logic is correct and properly handles partial timing data
The code inspection reveals that:
- The function correctly processes the
Collectiontype data structure which contains timing metrics - The filtering change aligns with the chart's usage in
createOutput.ts - The OR condition in the filter is intentional as it supports tracking PRs at different stages (review/approve/merge)
- The implementation properly handles the
StatsTypevalues ("average", "median", "percentile") with appropriate type safety
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential edge cases in the data that might affect visualization
# Look for instances where only some timing metrics are present
ast-grep --pattern 'timeToReview: $_' # Check review timing patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'timeToApprove: $_' # Check approval timing patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'timeToMerge: $_' # Check merge timing patterns
# Check for test cases or examples
rg -l 'createTimelineMonthComparisonChart' --type test
Length of output: 203
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify the data structure and usage
# Find all files that might contain test data or usage of the chart
rg -l "createTimelineMonthComparisonChart"
# Look for type definitions or interfaces related to timing metrics
rg -A 5 "interface.*\{" --type typescript | grep -A 5 "time"
# Check for mock data or test data structures
rg -A 10 "const.*data.*=.*{" --type typescript | grep -A 10 "time"
# Look for any Jest/test files regardless of extension
fd -e test.ts -e test.tsx -e spec.ts -e spec.tsx
Length of output: 698
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's fix the previous queries and look for more specific information
# Check the actual implementation and its usage
rg -A 5 "createTimelineMonthComparisonChart" src/view/utils/createTimelineMonthComparisonChart.ts
# Look for interfaces and types with corrected syntax
rg -A 5 "interface" src/view/utils/createTimelineMonthComparisonChart.ts
rg -A 5 "type" src/view/utils/createTimelineMonthComparisonChart.ts
# Check how the chart is used in createOutput
rg -A 5 "createTimelineMonthComparisonChart" src/createOutput.ts
# Look for test data structures with fixed syntax
rg "const.*data.*=" src/view/utils/createTimelineMonthComparisonChart.ts
Length of output: 2180
src/view/utils/createTotalTable.ts (3)
8-9: LGTM! Import changes align with new metrics.
The new imports for unreviewed and unapproved PR headers align well with the PR's objective to track PRs lacking reviews and approvals.
64-65: LGTM! Header changes match data structure.
The new headers are correctly positioned to match the corresponding data columns in tableRowsTotal.
28-29: Verify data structure compatibility.
The implementation looks correct, but let's verify that the Collection type properly includes these new fields.
✅ Verification successful
Data structure compatibility confirmed
The Collection type in src/converters/types.ts properly includes both unreviewed?: number and unapproved?: number fields, making the implementation fully type-safe.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify Collection type includes unreviewed and unapproved fields
# Expected: Find type definition with these fields
ast-grep --pattern 'type Collection = {
$$$
unreviewed?: number;
unapproved?: number;
$$$
}'
Length of output: 3450
src/view/utils/createReviewTable.ts (1)
61-61: Verify if size ranges need adjustment with new formula
The PR size calculation formula has been updated to use a lower deletion coefficient (0.2 instead of 0.5), which means PRs will generally be categorized as smaller sizes. Consider if the size ranges (0-50: xs, 51-200: s, etc.) should be adjusted accordingly to maintain a balanced distribution.
Let's analyze the impact of this change:
src/createOutput.ts (2)
7-7: LGTM! Import properly grouped with related utilities.
The addition of createDependencyMarkdown import aligns with the PR objectives and is correctly grouped with other view utility functions.
61-77: Verify correlation metrics alignment with PR objectives.
The implementation adds correlation graphs as specified in the PR objectives. However, let's verify that the createDependencyMarkdown function includes all required metrics:
- Lead time vs PR size correlation
- PRs without reviews
- PRs without approvals
✅ Verification successful
Based on the analysis of the implementation, I can now provide the final response:
Correlation metrics implementation aligns with PR objectives
The implementation successfully includes all required correlation metrics:
- Lead time vs PR size correlation through
timeToMergemetric - Review time vs PR size correlation through
timeToReviewmetric - Approval time vs PR size correlation through
timeToApprovemetric
The correlation graphs are generated for different PR sizes (xs, s, m, l, xl) and support multiple aggregation methods (percentile, average, median) as configured through AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS. The implementation is complete and properly integrated with the issue comment creation flow.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the implementation of createDependencyMarkdown
ast-grep --pattern 'export function createDependencyMarkdown($_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 77
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching for createDependencyMarkdown function with a more flexible pattern
ast-grep --pattern 'function createDependencyMarkdown'
# Also search for the file containing this function using ripgrep
rg "createDependencyMarkdown" -l
# Get the content of files containing this function for detailed analysis
rg "createDependencyMarkdown" -A 20
Length of output: 11874
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of createSizeDependencyXYChart to understand what metrics are included
rg "createSizeDependencyXYChart" -A 20
# Also search for any configuration or constants related to correlation metrics
rg "AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS" -A 5
Length of output: 20777
src/converters/utils/preparePullRequestStats.ts (1)
37-60: Implementation aligns well with PR objectives.
The added code successfully implements the size-based metrics calculation needed for analyzing the correlation between lead time and pull request size. The structure allows for easy comparison of review, approval, and merge times across different PR sizes.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 39-39: Avoid the use of spread (...) syntax on accumulators.
Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in .reduce) because it causes a time complexity of O(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.
(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
| export const calcPRsize = ( | ||
| additions: number | undefined, | ||
| deletions: number | undefined | ||
| ) => { | ||
| return (additions || 0) + (deletions || 0) * deletionCoefficient; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replace || with ?? operator for proper zero handling
The current implementation using || will treat 0 as a falsy value, potentially causing incorrect calculations when either additions or deletions are legitimately 0.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
export const calcPRsize = (
additions: number | undefined,
deletions: number | undefined
) => {
- return (additions || 0) + (deletions || 0) * deletionCoefficient;
+ return (additions ?? 0) + (deletions ?? 0) * deletionCoefficient;
};📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export const calcPRsize = ( | |
| additions: number | undefined, | |
| deletions: number | undefined | |
| ) => { | |
| return (additions || 0) + (deletions || 0) * deletionCoefficient; | |
| }; | |
| export const calcPRsize = ( | |
| additions: number | undefined, | |
| deletions: number | undefined | |
| ) => { | |
| return (additions ?? 0) + (deletions ?? 0) * deletionCoefficient; | |
| }; |
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add input validation for negative values
The function should validate inputs to ensure meaningful PR size calculations. Negative additions or deletions could lead to misleading metrics.
Consider this implementation:
export const calcPRsize = (
additions: number | undefined,
deletions: number | undefined
) => {
+ const validAdditions = Math.max(0, additions ?? 0);
+ const validDeletions = Math.max(0, deletions ?? 0);
- return (additions || 0) + (deletions || 0) * deletionCoefficient;
+ return validAdditions + validDeletions * deletionCoefficient;
};📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export const calcPRsize = ( | |
| additions: number | undefined, | |
| deletions: number | undefined | |
| ) => { | |
| return (additions || 0) + (deletions || 0) * deletionCoefficient; | |
| }; | |
| export const calcPRsize = ( | |
| additions: number | undefined, | |
| deletions: number | undefined | |
| ) => { | |
| const validAdditions = Math.max(0, additions ?? 0); | |
| const validDeletions = Math.max(0, deletions ?? 0); | |
| return validAdditions + validDeletions * deletionCoefficient; | |
| }; |
| const charts = users | ||
| .filter((user) => Object.keys(data[user]?.total?.sizes || {}).length > 1) | ||
| .map((user) => { | ||
| return getMultipleValuesInput("AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS") | ||
| .map((type) => | ||
| createSizeDependencyXYChart(data, type as StatsType, user) | ||
| ) | ||
| .join("\n"); | ||
| }) | ||
| .join("\n"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Type assertion is unnecessary and can be improved
The verification reveals that:
getMultipleValuesInputis a generic string array utility that splits comma-separated values from environment/inputsStatsTypeis properly defined as"average" | "median" | "percentile"in types.ts- The type assertion in the original code is unnecessary since we can validate the values at the input level
Here's a safer approach:
const methods = getMultipleValuesInput("AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS");
if (!methods.every((m): m is StatsType => ['average', 'median', 'percentile'].includes(m))) {
throw new Error('Invalid aggregate value method');
}
return methods
.map(type => createSizeDependencyXYChart(data, type, user))
.join("\n");🔗 Analysis chain
Consider improving data processing robustness and type safety
A few suggestions to enhance the implementation:
- The filtering condition
data[user]?.total?.sizesuses multiple optional chaining which could be made more explicit - The type assertion
type as StatsTypesuggests potential type safety issues
Consider this refactoring:
const charts = users
.filter((user) => {
- Object.keys(data[user]?.total?.sizes || {}).length > 1
+ const userSizes = data[user]?.total?.sizes;
+ return userSizes != null && Object.keys(userSizes).length > 1;
})
.map((user) => {
- return getMultipleValuesInput("AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS")
- .map((type) =>
- createSizeDependencyXYChart(data, type as StatsType, user)
- )
+ const methods = getMultipleValuesInput("AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS") as StatsType[];
+ return methods
+ .map((type) => createSizeDependencyXYChart(data, type, user))
.join("\n");
})
.join("\n");Let's verify the possible values returned by getMultipleValuesInput:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the definition and usage of AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS
rg -l "AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS"
# Search for StatsType definition to verify alignment
ast-grep --pattern 'type StatsType = $_'
Length of output: 582
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of getMultipleValuesInput
rg -A 5 "getMultipleValuesInput.*="
# Check how AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS is defined/used
rg "AGGREGATE_VALUE_METHODS.*="
# Check createSizeDependencyXYChart implementation for type usage
ast-grep --pattern 'function createSizeDependencyXYChart($_: $_,$_: StatsType,$_: $_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 9673
| @@ -6,8 +6,9 @@ export const timeToMergeHeader = "Time to merge"; | |||
| export const totalMergedPrsHeader = "Total merged PRs"; | |||
| export const totalOpenedPrsHeader = "Total opened PRs"; | |||
| export const totalRevertedPrsHeader = "Total reverted PRs"; | |||
| export const additionsDeletionsHeader = "Additions/Deletions"; | |||
| export const reviewCommentsHeader = "Total comments"; | |||
| export const additionsDeletionsHeader = "Additions / Deletions"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Spacing around slashes is inconsistent in header constants
The codebase shows inconsistent spacing patterns around slashes in header constants:
"Additions / Deletions"(with spaces)"Changes requested / Commented / Approved"(with spaces)"PR size: xs/s/m/l/xl"(without spaces)
Consider standardizing the spacing pattern across all header constants for better consistency.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM! Consider checking spacing consistency.
The added spaces around the slash improve readability.
Let's verify spacing consistency in other similar headers:
Let's search for actual header constants with slashes to check their spacing pattern.
Let me fix the regex syntax:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent spacing around slashes in header constants
# Expected: All similar headers should follow the same spacing pattern
rg -l "/.+" --type ts
Length of output: 3632
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for string constants containing slashes in TypeScript files
rg -g "*.ts" '(const|let|var).*=.*".*\/.*"' -A 1
Length of output: 168
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for string constants containing slashes in TypeScript files
rg -g "*.ts" "(const|let|var).*=.*['\"].*/.+['\"]" -A 1
Length of output: 1066
| max: Math.ceil( | ||
| Math.max( | ||
| ...sizes.map((size) => | ||
| Math.max( | ||
| ...["timeToReview", "timeToApprove", "timeToMerge"].map( | ||
| (key) => | ||
| data[user]?.total?.sizes?.[size]?.[type]?.[ | ||
| key as "timeToReview" | "timeToApprove" | "timeToMerge" | ||
| ] || 0 | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| ), | ||
| 1 | ||
| ) / 60 | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Extract time conversion logic and simplify max calculation
The max value calculation is complex and the time conversion from seconds to hours is repeated throughout the code.
const SECONDS_TO_HOURS = 60;
function convertSecondsToHours(seconds: number): number {
return Math.round((seconds / SECONDS_TO_HOURS) * 100) / 100;
}
function getMaxTimeForSize(data: Record<string, Record<string, Collection>>, user: string, size: string, type: StatsType): number {
const timeMetrics = ["timeToReview", "timeToApprove", "timeToMerge"] as const;
return Math.max(...timeMetrics.map(metric =>
data[user]?.total?.sizes?.[size]?.[type]?.[metric] || 0
));
}| lines: [ | ||
| { | ||
| color: "gold", | ||
| name: "Time\\ To\\ Review", | ||
| values: sizes.map( | ||
| (size) => | ||
| Math.round( | ||
| ((data[user]?.total?.sizes?.[size]?.[type]?.timeToReview || 0) / | ||
| 60) * | ||
| 100 | ||
| ) / 100 | ||
| ), | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| color: "chartreuse", | ||
| name: "Time\\ To\\ Approve", | ||
| values: sizes.map( | ||
| (size) => | ||
| Math.round( | ||
| ((data[user]?.total?.sizes?.[size]?.[type]?.timeToApprove || 0) / | ||
| 60) * | ||
| 100 | ||
| ) / 100 | ||
| ), | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| color: "blueviolet", | ||
| name: "Time\\ To\\ Merge", | ||
| values: sizes.map( | ||
| (size) => | ||
| Math.round( | ||
| ((data[user]?.total?.sizes?.[size]?.[type]?.timeToMerge || 0) / | ||
| 60) * | ||
| 100 | ||
| ) / 100 | ||
| ), | ||
| }, | ||
| ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reduce code duplication in line configurations
The line configurations contain repeated logic for time conversion and similar structure. Consider extracting common logic and using a configuration object.
interface LineConfig {
metric: 'timeToReview' | 'timeToApprove' | 'timeToMerge';
color: string;
displayName: string;
}
const lineConfigs: LineConfig[] = [
{ metric: 'timeToReview', color: 'gold', displayName: 'Time\\ To\\ Review' },
{ metric: 'timeToApprove', color: 'chartreuse', displayName: 'Time\\ To\\ Approve' },
{ metric: 'timeToMerge', color: 'blueviolet', displayName: 'Time\\ To\\ Merge' }
];
function createLineData(config: LineConfig, data: Record<string, Record<string, Collection>>, user: string, type: StatsType) {
return {
color: config.color,
name: config.displayName,
values: sizes.map(size =>
convertSecondsToHours(data[user]?.total?.sizes?.[size]?.[type]?.[config.metric] || 0)
)
};
}
// Usage:
lines: lineConfigs.map(config => createLineData(config, data, user, type))| if (getValueAsIs("SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS") === "true") { | ||
| const dependencyComment = await octokit.rest.issues.createComment({ | ||
| repo: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_REPO_FOR_ISSUE"), | ||
| owner: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_OWNER_FOR_ISSUE"), | ||
| issue_number: issue.data.number, | ||
| body: createDependencyMarkdown(data, users, [ | ||
| { | ||
| title: "Pull Request report total", | ||
| link: `${issue.data.html_url}#`, | ||
| }, | ||
| ]), | ||
| }); | ||
| comments.push({ | ||
| comment: dependencyComment, | ||
| title: "Correlation Graphs", | ||
| }); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for the correlation graphs feature.
The new feature block lacks error handling for the API call and validation of the markdown generation.
Consider wrapping the code in a try-catch block and adding validation:
if (getValueAsIs("SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS") === "true") {
+ try {
+ const dependencyMarkdown = createDependencyMarkdown(data, users, [
+ {
+ title: "Pull Request report total",
+ link: `${issue.data.html_url}#`,
+ },
+ ]);
+
+ if (!dependencyMarkdown) {
+ console.warn("Skipping correlation graphs: No data to display");
+ return;
+ }
+
const dependencyComment = await octokit.rest.issues.createComment({
repo: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_REPO_FOR_ISSUE"),
owner: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_OWNER_FOR_ISSUE"),
issue_number: issue.data.number,
- body: createDependencyMarkdown(data, users, [
- {
- title: "Pull Request report total",
- link: `${issue.data.html_url}#`,
- },
- ]),
+ body: dependencyMarkdown,
});
comments.push({
comment: dependencyComment,
title: "Correlation Graphs",
});
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error("Failed to create correlation graphs:", error);
+ // Consider whether to re-throw or continue with other operations
+ }
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| if (getValueAsIs("SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS") === "true") { | |
| const dependencyComment = await octokit.rest.issues.createComment({ | |
| repo: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_REPO_FOR_ISSUE"), | |
| owner: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_OWNER_FOR_ISSUE"), | |
| issue_number: issue.data.number, | |
| body: createDependencyMarkdown(data, users, [ | |
| { | |
| title: "Pull Request report total", | |
| link: `${issue.data.html_url}#`, | |
| }, | |
| ]), | |
| }); | |
| comments.push({ | |
| comment: dependencyComment, | |
| title: "Correlation Graphs", | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| if (getValueAsIs("SHOW_CORRELATION_GRAPHS") === "true") { | |
| try { | |
| const dependencyMarkdown = createDependencyMarkdown(data, users, [ | |
| { | |
| title: "Pull Request report total", | |
| link: `${issue.data.html_url}#`, | |
| }, | |
| ]); | |
| if (!dependencyMarkdown) { | |
| console.warn("Skipping correlation graphs: No data to display"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| const dependencyComment = await octokit.rest.issues.createComment({ | |
| repo: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_REPO_FOR_ISSUE"), | |
| owner: getValueAsIs("GITHUB_OWNER_FOR_ISSUE"), | |
| issue_number: issue.data.number, | |
| body: dependencyMarkdown, | |
| }); | |
| comments.push({ | |
| comment: dependencyComment, | |
| title: "Correlation Graphs", | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error("Failed to create correlation graphs:", error); | |
| // Consider whether to re-throw or continue with other operations | |
| } | |
| } |
| sizes: Object.entries(collection?.sizes || {}).reduce( | ||
| (acc, el) => ({ | ||
| ...acc, | ||
| [el[0]]: { | ||
| ...acc[el[0]], | ||
| percentile: { | ||
| timeToReview: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview), | ||
| timeToApprove: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove), | ||
| timeToMerge: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge), | ||
| }, | ||
| median: { | ||
| timeToReview: calcMedianValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview), | ||
| timeToApprove: calcMedianValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove), | ||
| timeToMerge: calcMedianValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge), | ||
| }, | ||
| average: { | ||
| timeToReview: calcAverageValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview), | ||
| timeToApprove: calcAverageValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove), | ||
| timeToMerge: calcAverageValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }), | ||
| collection?.sizes || {} | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Address potential performance bottleneck in reducer.
The current implementation uses spread operator in the reducer which can lead to O(n²) time complexity as the accumulator grows with each iteration.
Consider using Object.assign or direct property assignment for better performance:
sizes: Object.entries(collection?.sizes || {}).reduce(
- (acc, el) => ({
- ...acc,
- [el[0]]: {
- ...acc[el[0]],
- percentile: {
- timeToReview: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToReview),
- timeToApprove: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToApprove),
- timeToMerge: calcPercentileValue(acc[el[0]]?.timeToMerge),
- },
- // ... other calculations
- },
- }),
+ (acc, [size, data]) => {
+ acc[size] = {
+ ...data,
+ percentile: {
+ timeToReview: calcPercentileValue(data?.timeToReview),
+ timeToApprove: calcPercentileValue(data?.timeToApprove),
+ timeToMerge: calcPercentileValue(data?.timeToMerge),
+ },
+ // ... other calculations
+ };
+ return acc;
+ },
collection?.sizes || {}
),Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 39-39: Avoid the use of spread (...) syntax on accumulators.
Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in .reduce) because it causes a time complexity of O(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.
(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
| unreviewed: timeToReview | ||
| ? collection?.unreviewed || 0 | ||
| : (collection?.unreviewed || 0) + 1, | ||
| unapproved: timeToApprove | ||
| ? collection?.unapproved || 0 | ||
| : (collection?.unapproved || 0) + 1, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix logical error in unreviewed and unapproved counters
Since 0 is a falsy value in JavaScript, if timeToReview or timeToApprove is 0, the ternary operator will incorrectly increment unreviewed or unapproved. This results in PRs that were reviewed or approved immediately being counted as unreviewed or unapproved.
To fix this, explicitly check for undefined or null:
unreviewed: timeToReview !== undefined && timeToReview !== null
? collection?.unreviewed || 0
: (collection?.unreviewed || 0) + 1,
unapproved: timeToApprove !== undefined && timeToApprove !== null
? collection?.unapproved || 0
: (collection?.unapproved || 0) + 1,📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| unreviewed: timeToReview | |
| ? collection?.unreviewed || 0 | |
| : (collection?.unreviewed || 0) + 1, | |
| unapproved: timeToApprove | |
| ? collection?.unapproved || 0 | |
| : (collection?.unapproved || 0) + 1, | |
| unreviewed: timeToReview !== undefined && timeToReview !== null | |
| ? collection?.unreviewed || 0 | |
| : (collection?.unreviewed || 0) + 1, | |
| unapproved: timeToApprove !== undefined && timeToApprove !== null | |
| ? collection?.unapproved || 0 | |
| : (collection?.unapproved || 0) + 1, |
| timeToReview: timeToReview || 0, | ||
| timeToApprove: timeToApprove ? timeToApprove - (timeToReview || 0) : 0, | ||
| timeToMerge: timeToMerge ? timeToMerge - (timeToApprove || 0) : 0, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure correct time calculations when time values are zero
If timeToReview, timeToApprove, or timeToMerge are 0, the current ternary checks will treat them as falsy and assign 0, potentially leading to incorrect time intervals.
Modify the checks to explicitly handle undefined or null values:
timeToReview: timeToReview !== undefined && timeToReview !== null ? timeToReview : 0,
timeToApprove:
- timeToApprove ? timeToApprove - (timeToReview || 0) : 0,
+ timeToApprove !== undefined && timeToApprove !== null
+ ? timeToApprove - (timeToReview !== undefined && timeToReview !== null ? timeToReview : 0)
+ : 0,
timeToMerge:
- timeToMerge ? timeToMerge - (timeToApprove || 0) : 0,
+ timeToMerge !== undefined && timeToMerge !== null
+ ? timeToMerge - (timeToApprove !== undefined && timeToApprove !== null ? timeToApprove : 0)
+ : 0,📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| timeToReview: timeToReview || 0, | |
| timeToApprove: timeToApprove ? timeToApprove - (timeToReview || 0) : 0, | |
| timeToMerge: timeToMerge ? timeToMerge - (timeToApprove || 0) : 0, | |
| timeToReview: timeToReview !== undefined && timeToReview !== null ? timeToReview : 0, | |
| timeToApprove: | |
| timeToApprove !== undefined && timeToApprove !== null | |
| ? timeToApprove - (timeToReview !== undefined && timeToReview !== null ? timeToReview : 0) | |
| : 0, | |
| timeToMerge: | |
| timeToMerge !== undefined && timeToMerge !== null | |
| ? timeToMerge - (timeToApprove !== undefined && timeToApprove !== null ? timeToApprove : 0) | |
| : 0, |
Pull Request
Description
contributiontable.Type of Change
How Has This Been Tested?
Used for different months and teams.
Checklist:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
unreviewedandunapprovedcounts.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Refactor