-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
#46: ignore archived repositories for Fbe#unmask_repos #49
Conversation
repos << r[:full_name] if re.match?(r[:full_name]) | ||
end | ||
end | ||
masks.select { |m| m.start_with?('-') }.each do |mask| | ||
re = Fbe.mask_to_regex(mask[1..]) | ||
repos.reject! { |r| re.match?(r) } | ||
end | ||
repos.reject! { |repo| octo.repository(repo)[:archived] } |
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.
@Yegorov you are making an extra HTTP request to GitHub API. Maybe it's better to use the JSON already retrieved a few lines earlier, in line 48?
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.
Maybe it's better to use the JSON already retrieved a few lines earlier, in line 48?
@yegor256 I examined this case, but there may be a situation when an added repository without a mask is already in the archive
See this code: we added repos without make request to GitHub API:
unless mask.include?('*')
repos << mask
next
end
Therefore, we should do an archive test at the very end
@Yegorov ok, thanks |
@yegor256 Hey there! Thanks for jumping in on this review. I've got some good news and some room for improvement for you. So, here's the scoop: You've earned 15 points for this review. Not bad, but let me break it down for you: You started with a solid 25-point base - that's automatic for every review. Nice! Now, I noticed you only left one comment. The policy encourages more engagement, aiming for at least 6 comments to avoid a 10-point deduction. Unfortunately, we had to apply that deduction here. But hey, look on the bright side! You didn't review your own code (that would've cost you 40 points), and you showed up to participate. That's great! Want to boost your points next time? Here are some tips:
Your current balance is -579, but don't let that discourage you. Every review is a chance to climb up. Remember, you can earn up to 100 points per review! Keep at it, and let's see those points soar. You've got this! |
@Yegorov Hey there! 👋 Thanks for the review, but reviewing your own code isn't the best practice. Your score for this one is +5 points: +25 base, -40 for self-review, -10 for only 3 comments (we like to see at least 6!), and +30 to keep you motivated. Remember, more comments and reviewing others' code can boost your score next time. Your total balance is now +194. Keep up the good work and let's aim for that 80-point max in future reviews! 💪 |
No description provided.