Add meta-review to gamification #190

shikharvaish28 · 2018-09-09T08:33:25Z

From this PR, we add the meta-review activity on the gamification page of the active newcomers.

Closes #181

gitmate-bot · 2018-09-09T12:28:36Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 from gamification.labels import NEGATIVE_POINT_LABELS
 from gamification.data.points import MERGE_REQUEST_CLOSED_WITHOUT_MERGE
 from gamification.models import Participant
+from meta_review.models import Participant as meta_participant # Ignore PyFlakesBear


The code does not comply to PEP8.

Origin: PEP8Bear, Section: all.python.default.

The issue can be fixed by applying the following patch:

--- a/tmp/tmpllcuiaks/gamification/process/update.py +++ b/tmp/tmpllcuiaks/gamification/process/update.py @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ from gamification.labels import NEGATIVE_POINT_LABELS from gamification.data.points import MERGE_REQUEST_CLOSED_WITHOUT_MERGE from gamification.models import Participant -from meta_review.models import Participant as meta_participant # Ignore PyFlakesBear +from meta_review.models import Participant as meta_participant # Ignore PyFlakesBear def get_mr_objects():

gitmate-bot · 2018-09-09T12:28:37Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 from gamification.labels import NEGATIVE_POINT_LABELS
 from gamification.data.points import MERGE_REQUEST_CLOSED_WITHOUT_MERGE
 from gamification.models import Participant
+from meta_review.models import Participant as meta_participant # Ignore PyFlakesBear


E261 at least two spaces before inline comment

Origin: PycodestyleBear (E261), Section: all.python.default.

gitmate-bot · 2018-09-09T12:28:38Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 from gamification.labels import NEGATIVE_POINT_LABELS
 from gamification.data.points import MERGE_REQUEST_CLOSED_WITHOUT_MERGE
 from gamification.models import Participant
+from meta_review.models import Participant as meta_participant # Ignore PyFlakesBear


E501 line too long (84 > 80 characters)

Origin: PycodestyleBear (E501), Section: all.python.default.

gitmate-bot · 2018-09-09T12:28:38Z

gamification/process/update.py

+
+
+def add_meta_review(participant):
+    meta_participant = meta_participant.objects.values('score')


local variable 'meta_participant' (defined in enclosing scope on line 13) referenced before assignment

Origin: PyFlakesBear, Section: all.python.default.

gitmate-bot · 2018-09-09T12:28:39Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 from gamification.labels import NEGATIVE_POINT_LABELS
 from gamification.data.points import MERGE_REQUEST_CLOSED_WITHOUT_MERGE
 from gamification.models import Participant
+from meta_review.models import Participant as meta_participant # Ignore PyFlakesBear


Line is longer than allowed. (84 > 80)

Origin: LineLengthBear, Section: all.linelength.

shikharvaish28 · 2018-09-09T13:05:21Z

Netlify deploy is working on my end of another branch but not on this one. :(

sks444

See #181 (comment) and for:

Netlify deploy is working on my end of another branch but not on this one. :(

See #189

li-boxuan · 2018-09-17T02:24:17Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -56,7 +57,7 @@ def update_participants_data_with_mr(mr):

        # Update participant data
        mr_author.add_points(mr_points,
-                             mr_activity_string,
+                             mr_activity_string,  # Ignore PyFlakesBear


Any reason for this change?

IDK why but on running coala locally, I was receiving this traceback so I had no option but to add the ignore comment.

li-boxuan · 2018-09-17T02:27:38Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -135,6 +136,29 @@ def get_participant_objects():
    return participants


+def update_participants_data_with_meta_review(participants):


On line 35 (https://github.com/coala/community/pull/190/files#diff-0bee1776ac8d509157f197b459b8b9afR35) you are calling update_participants_data_with_meta_review(participant) but here it is called participants. So should the argument be one participant or many participants?

li-boxuan · 2018-09-17T02:29:03Z

gamification/process/update.py

+                        neg_in=participants.neg_in)
+    neg_out_meta_review = meta_review_participants.objects.get(
+                        neg_out=participants.neg_out)
+    if pos_in_meta_review > 0 or pos_out_meta_review > 0 or


See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/181530/styling-multi-line-conditions-in-if-statements

li-boxuan · 2018-09-17T02:33:28Z

gamification/process/update.py

+    'Completed Meta-Review' activity.
+    """
+    pos_in_meta_review = meta_review_participants.objects.get(
+                        pos_in=participants.pos_in)


This part makes me a bit confused. Does this ever work? Apparently participants come from gamification.models, which doesn't have pos_in field.

meta_review_participants.objects.get(pos_in=some number) doesn't make sense to me either. This returns an object whose pos_in field = some number.

li-boxuan · 2018-09-17T02:42:31Z

.gitignore

@@ -488,3 +488,5 @@ _site/

 # Pytest profile files
 prof/
+*.orig
+.vscode/settings.json


Create a new issue for changes you want to make that are unrelated to this pr.
Also, .vscode already exists in .gitignore.

Created #194

sks444 · 2018-09-18T16:34:01Z

gamification/process/update.py

@@ -135,6 +136,29 @@ def get_participant_objects():
    return participants


+def update_participants_data_with_meta_review(participants):


One idea is that this method would take list of all the participants objects from the
meta-review partcipant model...and then iterate through each of the participant object from the list while filtering out only those participant whose usernames are in active_newcomer_list(as gamifiction system only work for those participant) and then if that participant have completed meta-review then get the object of that participant from the gamification participant model and add the meta-review activity for that participant.

What I am trying to do as of now:

Get a list of all the participants using get_participant_objects()

Iterate over the above-mentioned list and send it to each participant to update_participants_data_with_meta_review(participant)

Verify the conditions and store it as True or False in participant.meta_review_completed

PS: I'm testing these changes on another branch so that while pushing the changes, my PR doesn't gets bad with Travis test failing messages

I think maybe you're getting confused b/w meta-review Participants and gamification Participants, meta-review system works for all members at coala and gamification system works for only active newcomers at coala.

participants from get_participant_objects() are coming from gamification models, so they do not have fields like pos_in and neg_out etc..so you can't do1 as @li-boxuan mentioned there.

and where is meta_review_completed field? if you want to do something like participant.meta_review_completed with participant object you need a field of that name to the Participant model. I think you don't need to do something like that, when you find that a participant has completed meta-review, just add the meta-review completed activity for that participant by using add_activity method.

Maybe rebase this commit on top of #152 so that this pr passes CI and we can see you changes running.

I'm testing these changes on another branch so that while pushing the changes, my PR doesn't gets bad with Travis test failing messages

li-boxuan

You need to figure out how to design update_participants_data_with_meta_review. As mentioned #190 (comment) here, there are two concepts. One way to tackle this is that once you iterate through each meta-review participant, you need to check if they are a gamification participant. If yes, you need to somehow get corresponding gamification participant, and update its activity.

.gitignore

gamification/data/config.py

gamification/management/commands/update_participants_data.py

gamification/process/update.py

li-boxuan · 2018-09-21T01:46:54Z

gamification/process/update.py

+                        neg_out=meta_review_participants.neg_out)
+    if pos_in_meta_review > 0 or pos_out_meta_review > 0 or \
+       neg_in_meta_review > 0 or neg_out_meta_review > 0:
+        participant.meta_review_completed = True


Is this field defined anywhere? Moreover, IMO this field should belong to gamification participant, not meta-review participant. Seems you are passing a meta-review participant to this function update_participants_data_with_meta_review

li-boxuan · 2018-09-21T01:49:42Z

gamification/process/update.py

+    'Completed Meta-Review' activity.
+    """
+    pos_in_meta_review = meta_review_participants.objects.get(
+                        pos_in=meta_review_participants.pos_in)


I don't quite understand this. If you want to get the value of pos_in of the current meta-review participant (seems the parameter of this function is meta_review participant), you should do pos_in_meta_review = participant.pos_in

shikharvaish28 · 2018-09-21T11:01:12Z

I'm passing a meta-review participant from a list of participants extracted from get_meta_review_participant_objects. Then, we iterate over that list and send each member to function update_participants_data_with_meta_review since the meta-review is done for each participant. If pos_in and other attributes are found to be positive then we call meta_review_add_activity(Similar to add_activity )to update the activity.

~~Should I create another add_activity for meta-review?~~

@li-boxuan @sks444 Your thoughts, please.

Update: As far as I think, I have added everything as asked for except check if they are a gamification participant. This is something I'm still figuring a way out.

li-boxuan · 2018-09-24T10:57:46Z

meta_review/models.py

@@ -95,3 +95,12 @@ class Reaction(models.Model):
    giver = models.ForeignKey(Participant, related_name='give', null=True)
    receiver = models.ForeignKey(Participant, related_name='receive', null=True)
    review = models.ForeignKey(Comment, null=True)
+
+    def meta_review_add_activity(self):


meta-review activity shouldn't be defined in the meta-review app, but in the gamification app.

Will change it. Apart from that is everything fine?

I think this is the major problem. Once the logic gets correct then we can focus on minor issues like coding style, etc.

jayvdb · 2018-10-29T05:38:08Z

gamification/process/update.py

+            created_at = reaction_name.created_at
+            updated_at = '2017-08-24 05:59:31+00:00'
+            gamification_participant.add_activity(
+                                                0,


horrible indentation. find a nicer way.

jayvdb · 2018-10-29T05:39:16Z

gamification/process/update.py

+            username=meta_review_participant.login)
+        reaction_name = Reaction.objects.get(id=meta_review_participant.login)
+        if (meta_review_participant.pos_in > 0 or
+            meta_review_participant.pos_out > 0 or


this violates pep8

jayvdb · 2018-10-29T07:39:19Z

gamification/process/update.py

+            created_at = reaction_name.created_at
+            updated_at = None
+            gamification_participant.add_activity(0, activity,
+                                                  created_at, updated_at,)


a , before a ) is completely useless.

the concept is called trailing comma , because it adds a comma and the end of the line -- the absolute end of the line, with nothing after it.

but also, use hanging indent for these args, dont put the args on the same line as the function name. that isnt nice when the function name is long, as the args need to be squished on the RHS of the page.

li-boxuan · 2018-10-29T09:42:34Z

gamification/process/update.py

+                meta_review_participant.neg_out > 0):
+            """
+            Add a meta-review activity to the participant
+            """


Use # for comment here since it's single line anyway.

gamification/process/update.py

li-boxuan · 2018-10-29T09:50:16Z

gamification/tests/test_models.py

@@ -341,3 +349,48 @@ def test_add_badges_method(self):

        # After applying add_badge method
        self.assertEquals(test_participant.badges.count(), 0)
+
+    def test_update_participants_data_with_meta_review(self):


Can you split this long test case to several smaller test cases?

Can you please throw some light on how you want me to split it? It's because all of the 3 participants here are for the same stuff so it's becoming difficult to identify which form do I split it in. @li-boxuan

sks444

Looking good. :)

sks444 · 2018-10-29T10:54:20Z

gamification/process/update.py

+    Update participants based on meta-review
+
+    This method updates every participant based on the meta-review
+    received or given. If the gamification participant is


gamification participant --> meta-review participant?

if meta_review_participant.login in active_newcomers_list:

I've done this already here :)

No, I meant the sentence should be If the meta-review participant is in..?

sks444 · 2018-10-29T11:11:51Z

gamification/process/update.py

+        # Get the corresponding gamification participant
+        gamification_participant = Participant.objects.get(
+            username=meta_review_participant.login)
+        reaction_name = Reaction.objects.get(id=meta_review_participant.login)


I am confused here, how can Reaction id would be equal to meta_review_participant login?

Reaction.id and meta_review_participant.login are the name of the participant. (I've cross checked it by printing both of them.)

Really? How did you cross check that? That would be super weird.

In test_model.py, I printed both of them separately(with one testuser) and for seeing the output, ran pytest -s @li-boxuan

I still don't believe it's correct. I might verify it myself later. If you want to accelerate the review process, add print after this line (print out the reaction instance you get and the meta_review_participant.login), run .ci/build.sh, copy and past the result (one typical result is enough) here. Then I'll have to believe it and see if there is any other bug or voodoo.
Btw, reaction_name is a weird name. It is a Reaction instance, how come it being called 'reaction_name'?

The meta_review_participant.login output and reaction output.

The .ci/build.sh output

gamification/tests/test_models.py

gamification/process/update.py

li-boxuan · 2018-10-29T14:19:07Z

I cannot see anyone who has finished meta-review activity on https://deploy-preview-190--coala-community.netlify.com/gamification/

shikharvaish28 · 2018-10-29T15:54:24Z

I cannot see anyone who has finished meta-review activity on https://deploy-preview-190--coala-community.netlify.com/gamification/

I'm myself able to understand why is it happening because the tests are running perfectly fine.

li-boxuan

The netlify is not showing the result you want, because your code is wong.
Your tests are passing, because your tests are also wrong.

li-boxuan · 2018-10-30T02:04:17Z

gamification/tests/test_models.py

+        # meta-review participant
+        meta_review_participant.objects.create(login='test2')
+        test_meta_review_participant = meta_review_participant.objects.get(
+                                       login='test2')


Unnecessary. meta_review_participant.objects.create(login='test2') will return the instance.

li-boxuan · 2018-10-30T02:06:08Z

gamification/tests/test_models.py

+        test_meta_review_participant = meta_review_participant.objects.get(
+                                       login='test2')
+
+        Reaction.objects.create(id='test2')


Well, this is definitely inappropriate and prone to error. You are creating a reaction with id also equals to test2, but the participant you created is also with id test2.

li-boxuan · 2018-10-30T02:09:05Z

gamification/process/update.py

+        # Get the corresponding gamification participant
+        gamification_participant = Participant.objects.get(
+            username=meta_review_participant.login)
+        reaction = Reaction.objects.get(id=meta_review_participant.login)


This is definitely wrong. I checked the output you print out https://pastebin.com/6X6y5Kfx. You have the illusion that this works, because your test is wrong. In your test, both participant and reaction share the same id (primary_key), which gives you the wrong belief that you are correct.

That's why I said you should run .ci/build.sh and show the log to prove this works. You can use that for debugging, but you don't need to prove anymore as I am pretty confident now this is wrong.

@li-boxuan Thanks for your valuable input.

Can you please tell me what do I need to do in order to fix this? This thing is taking way much more time than I expected to. 😞

First you need to fix the test case. See #190 (comment) so that your test won't pass (which is good coz now you know your code is wrong).

Then read the definition of Reaction model. Understand the relationships between those models.

In order to test things, I used my user handle shikharvaish28. Ideally, I should be able to get reaction using id which is the primary key of Reaction model.

test_meta_review_participant = meta_review_participant.objects.get(login='shikharvaish28') reaction = Reaction.objects.get(id=test_meta_review_participant.login)

Instead, I am getting DoesNotExist: Reaction matching query does not exist.Can you please tell me why is it so?

Since login is the primary key of Participant, I am expecting it to be linked in someway to id of Reaction. I want to do this because if I am somehow able to get the corresponding participant for Reaction, everything would be sorted.

PS: I'm running these commands in django shell to get a gist of things.

Since login is the primary key of Participant, I am expecting it to be linked in someway to id of Reaction.

Your assumption is wrong. Django does not work like that.

I strongly recommend you to read https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/topics/db/queries/, esepecially understand how Foreign Key works.

Add the meta-review activity on the gamification page for the active newcomers. Closes #181

TravisBuddy · 2018-11-13T14:31:47Z

Travis tests have failed

Hey @shikharvaish28,
Please read the following log in order to understand the failure reason.
It'll be awesome if you fix what's wrong and commit the changes.

1st Build

View build log

./.ci/build.sh

+rm db.sqlite3
rm: cannot remove ‘db.sqlite3’: No such file or directory
+true
+rm -rf private _site public
+mkdir private _site public
+META_REVIEW_DATA=meta_review.json
+EXPORTED_DATA='static/tasks.yaml static/instances.yaml static/meta_review.json'
+ISSUES_JSON=issues.json
+python manage.py fetch_deployed_data --allow-failure _site static/tasks.yaml static/instances.yaml static/meta_review.json
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
+[[ -n '' ]]
+python manage.py fetch_deployed_data _site issues.json --repo-name gh-board --hoster github
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Giving up get_response(...) after 1 tries (RuntimeError: ('{"message":"API rate limit exceeded for 35.188.73.34. (But here\'s the good news: Authenticated requests get a higher rate limit. Check out the documentation for more details.)","documentation_url":"https://developer.github.com/v3/#rate-limiting"}', 403))
+python manage.py migrate
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Operations to perform:
  Apply all migrations: contenttypes, data, gamification, gci, gsoc, meta_review, openhub
Running migrations:
  Applying contenttypes.0001_initial... OK
  Applying contenttypes.0002_remove_content_type_name... OK
  Applying data.0001_initial... OK
  Applying data.0002_auto_20180704_1130... OK
  Applying data.0003_auto_20180801_0456... OK
  Applying data.0004_auto_20180809_2229... OK
  Applying gamification.0001_initial... OK
  Applying gci.0001_initial... OK
  Applying gsoc.0001_initial... OK
  Applying meta_review.0001_initial... OK
  Applying meta_review.0002_auto_20180707_0305... OK
  Applying openhub.0001_initial... OK
+python manage.py import_contributors_data
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Something went wrong saving this contributor testuser1: 'issues'
+python manage.py import_issues_data
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Something went wrong saving this issue 2: NOT NULL constraint failed: data_issue.repo_id
+python manage.py import_merge_requests_data
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Something went wrong saving this mr 1626: NOT NULL constraint failed: data_mergerequest.ci_status
+python manage.py create_config_data
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
+python manage.py create_participants
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
+python manage.py update_participants_data
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Merge request: https://github.com/coala/coala-eclipse/pull/29 has no labels.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Merge request: https://github.com/coala/coala-atom/pull/85 has no labels.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Merge request: https://github.com/coala/documentation/pull/86 has no labels.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue matching query does not exist.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/projects/issues/508 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/projects/issues/601 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/coala/issues/2825 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/gh-board/issues/10 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/coala-quickstart/issues/54 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/coala-bears/issues/910 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/coala-bears/issues/1499 has no labels.
Issue: https://github.com/coala/coala-bears/issues/781 has no labels.
Issue: https://gitlab.com/coala/cobot/issues/24 has no labels.
Issue: https://gitlab.com/coala/package_manager/issues/158 has no labels.
Issue: https://gitlab.com/coala/mobans/issues/33 has no labels.
+[[ -f _site/meta_review.json ]]
+echo 'File meta_review.json exists.'
File meta_review.json exists.
+python manage.py loaddata _site/meta_review.json
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
Installed 1785 object(s) from 1 fixture(s)
+python manage.py run_meta_review_system
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
+rm _site/issues.json
+python manage.py dumpdata meta_review
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'
+python manage.py collectstatic --noinput

3 static files copied to '/home/travis/build/coala/community/_site'.
+python manage.py distill-local public --force
OH_TOKEN can not be obtained: 'Please put your OH API key at .OH_API_KEY.'

You have requested to create a static version of
this site into the output path directory:

    Source static path:  _site/
    Distill output path: /home/travis/build/coala/community/public

Distill output directory exists, clean up?
This will delete and recreate all files in the output dir

Recreating output directory...

Generating static site into directory: /home/travis/build/coala/community/public
Loading site URLs
CommandError: Failed to render view:

TravisBuddy Request Identifier: d5919d10-e750-11e8-87c2-ebfa2f2e9d99

li-boxuan · 2018-11-13T16:05:13Z

gamification/process/update.py

+        # Get the corresponding gamification participant
+        gamification_participant = Participant.objects.get(
+            username=meta_review_participant.login)
+        reaction = Reaction.objects.get(id=meta_review_participant.login)


First you need to fix the test case. See #190 (comment) so that your test won't pass (which is good coz now you know your code is wrong).

Then read the definition of Reaction model. Understand the relationships between those models.

shikharvaish28 · 2018-12-08T12:18:25Z

@li-boxuan I'm closing this PR since I'm unable to solve this. I would prefer to do some other issues as of now. Kindly unassign me from this one so that this is free for someone else to take up.

gitmate-bot added the process/wip label Sep 9, 2018

jayvdb added the in progress label Sep 9, 2018

gitmate-bot added size/XS difficulty/low importance/medium in progress and removed in progress labels Sep 9, 2018

gitmate-bot assigned shikharvaish28 Sep 9, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

gitmate-bot reviewed Sep 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

sks444 reviewed Sep 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

li-boxuan requested changes Sep 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

sks444 reviewed Sep 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

li-boxuan requested changes Sep 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

li-boxuan reviewed Sep 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

gitmate-bot added process/pending review in progress labels Oct 28, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jayvdb requested changes Oct 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

jayvdb added process/wip and removed process/pending review labels Oct 29, 2018

gitmate-bot added process/pending review and removed process/wip labels Oct 29, 2018

jayvdb requested changes Oct 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

li-boxuan requested changes Oct 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

sks444 reviewed Oct 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

jayvdb added process/wip and removed process/pending review labels Oct 29, 2018

gitmate-bot added process/pending review and removed process/wip labels Oct 29, 2018

li-boxuan requested changes Oct 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

li-boxuan added process/wip and removed process/pending review labels Oct 30, 2018

Add meta-review activity in the gamification board.

b505d96

Add the meta-review activity on the gamification page for the active newcomers. Closes #181

gitmate-bot added process/pending review and removed process/wip labels Nov 13, 2018

li-boxuan requested changes Nov 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

li-boxuan added process/wip and removed process/pending review labels Nov 13, 2018

shikharvaish28 closed this Dec 8, 2018



		def add_meta_review(participant):
		meta_participant = meta_participant.objects.values('score')

		@@ -135,6 +136,29 @@ def get_participant_objects():
		return participants


		def update_participants_data_with_meta_review(participants):

Add meta-review to gamification #190

Add meta-review to gamification #190

Conversation

shikharvaish28 commented Sep 9, 2018 • edited Loading

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

shikharvaish28 commented Sep 9, 2018

sks444 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 Sep 17, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 Sep 18, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

li-boxuan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 commented Sep 21, 2018 • edited Loading

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 Oct 29, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sks444 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 Oct 29, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 Oct 29, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

li-boxuan commented Oct 29, 2018

shikharvaish28 commented Oct 29, 2018

li-boxuan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikharvaish28 Nov 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TravisBuddy commented Nov 13, 2018

Travis tests have failed

1st Build

TravisBuddy Request Identifier: d5919d10-e750-11e8-87c2-ebfa2f2e9d99

shikharvaish28 commented Sep 9, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 Sep 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 commented Sep 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 Oct 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 Oct 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 Oct 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

shikharvaish28 Nov 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading