-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
feat: preliminary signal definition #18
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @robrap! I hope you're doing great!
You mentioned inline code annotations here. And we followed your suggestion in this PR (is the same one as in the comment, but I deleted #9 by accident)
This is our take on it. We also thought about taking this to the edx code-annotations repo. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello @mariajgrimaldi. Great start. Thanks. Some quick initial thoughts:
a.
event_version
: if this is built into the type, do you need the redundant data that could get out of sync?b.
event_implementation
: How many are there? If just one, do we need this yet? Or, do we want to detail what the implementation types would be? (Note: for toggles, it is a statically defined list.) Defining the annotation configuration file in a separate PR might help hammer out that discussion. If we need to keep this annotation, I'd recommendOpenEdxPublicSignal
(orDjangoSignal
), but probably not both. Ultimately, there will be a how-to for writing these annotations that will explain more details.c.
event_creation_date
: We had this for toggles (not settings) to help with deprecation/removal of temporary toggles? Do you see a similar important need to have the date for this, or can this be dropped?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello @robrap, thanks for your quick response.
2a. You're right. I removed it! Thanks.
2b. For now, it's just one, so I'll follow your suggestion. We can review this later if necessary.
2c. I thought it could be useful for events versioning -eg. when moving from v1 to v2-. Don't you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the updates.
For 2c, I do not know yet. I am unclear on how versioning will evolve and how this metadata will be used. For now, since I think it is 100% redundant with the suffix of the
event_type
, and you'd probably need linting to ensure that the redundant data matches, I think it could be left off for now. I imagine the Sphinx plugin (if you go that route) could also pull the version off theevent_type
if you want it to be reported separately.Also, feel free to let me know if there are known cases where these will not match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @robrap! Hope you're doing great! Thanks again for the feedback.
BTW, we thought about adding
..event_status
. More about the status hereWhat do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@robrap, we are picking this up after our summer break, but we are thinking now with @mariajgrimaldi that this discussion requires its own PR since the the feedback about the definition itself seems to be taken in and it is resolved.
We would like to merge this very soon and focus on the PR that brings this into the platform. At the same time we will open a new PR about the status field in the inline documentation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@felipemontoya: I'm not clear on your proposal for handling this PR. I'd recommend that you land the docs as written, since it helps document the events, and then iterate and improve if you want to update/solidify the annotations in a separate PR (or PRs). Is that what you are thinking?
@mariajgrimaldi:
.. event_status
seems reasonable, assuming the ADR is accepted. I imagine that "removed" and "replaced" wouldn't be needed in the code annotations definitions, because these events and their docs simply wouldn't exist any more? This question doesn't need to be resolved on this PR.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great. Looks like we are leaving in these initial docs. Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @robrap. Yeah, the plan is to leave the docs as they were after your first round of reviews and manage only the lines with "event_status" and the ADR acceptance in the new PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @robrap! Thanks again for the review. As @felipemontoya said, we decided to move on with this initial proposal and review event_status in the new PR (here it is by the way) as we thought it could use more discussion.
Again, thank you for the help with the docs!