Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

H1: Replace Legacy Search #100

Merged
merged 397 commits into from
Mar 13, 2018
Merged

H1: Replace Legacy Search #100

merged 397 commits into from
Mar 13, 2018

Conversation

eawoods
Copy link
Contributor

@eawoods eawoods commented Mar 8, 2018

Review Process

General Expectations

  • Active participation from the entire team. We want input from the whole team. But this shouldn’t take a long time; plan to spend about an hour on this review.
  • Goal is to catch the rest of the dev team up on what the feature team has been doing, and catch obvious any embarrassing bugs and problems before beta testing.
  • Review period: please submit feedback by end of day Monday, March 12.
  • Feedback will be reviewed by the feature team. We’ll address as much as we can right away, and mark other things to address later on. We’ll give a brief report at next NG review meeting, and discuss any open issues.
  • After this review, the feature will go into public beta release unless there are major blocking problems. see release process doc

What to look for

  • Clarity on code structure and ability to understand how the feature is built.
  • Clarity on how this feature fits into documented architecture.
  • Consistency of feature with decisions made in other parts of the project.
  • Parity with current milestone: see milestone doc

Feedback collection and format

  • Code review: GitHub review comments
    • Inline comments are great to use for context on specific issues
    • “Approve” means “passes muster, ready to go to beta”
    • “Request changes” is exactly that; a bug or fix worth making now to avoid having obvious mistakes released to the wild
    • If neither option seems applicable: make comment to indicate that you have reviewed and are finished offering feedback
    • Avoid a non-response (no feedback at all), even if it’s just “I pass on this review and defer to others”

Giving effective feedback

  • Keep feedback within the scope of the target milestone.
  • If something is unclear, assume that there is a good explanation and ask for clarification.
  • As always, keep it civil, respectful, and supportive.

erickpeirson and others added 30 commits February 9, 2018 14:12
Copy link

@DavidLFielding DavidLFielding left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My overall impression from experimenting with search service is very positive. I mostly experimented with functionality described in the README. I spent limited time looking at code but am impressed at what code I did examine.

A few minor comments.

I initially downloaded the arXiv-search repository expecting to run and review standalone on my laptop. Our discussions of isolation and mocking had me thinking I could experiment in isolation. Sadly, I soon found out that I needed permission to the production server to populate test database.

2018-03-12 17:05:30,356 - search.services.metadata - ERROR: Request failed: b'<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">\n<html>\n<head><title>403 Forbidden</title></head>\n<body>\n<h1>Access Denied</h1>\n\n<p>Sadly, you do not currently appear to have permission to access\n<b>https://arxiv.org/docmeta/0704.3437</b></p>\n\n\n<p>If you believe this determination to be in error, see\n<b>https://arxiv.org/denied.html</b> for additional information.</p>\n</body>\n</html>\n'
2018-03-12 17:05:30,356 - search.agent.consumer - ERROR: 0704.3437: request failed

Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that! No problem that my VPN would not fix.

The tests failed for me. Since I saw other reports of failure and apparent known problems I did not investigate further.

When I ran pylint it seemed like there were a number of trivial warnings to clean up. On the other hand you likely have already cleaned up a lot such that the 9.31/10 rating meets the desired threshold.

When making the documentation 'make latexpdf' I saw a few errors fly by that I wasn't expecting.

WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'search.exceptions'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'search.exceptions'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'search.process.query'; the following exception was raised: No module named 'search.process.query'

My development search page seemed to work fine for the documents indexed.

The only search UI thing that bothers me ever so slightly (in Safari) is no box around the search text input area. So I need to mouse around to discover the box...the faint search terms helps...I guess it just bothers me when I need to mouse over to make input areas visible. Not sure how this impacts accessibility. I suppose auxiliary accessibility tags make it easier for someone with a page reader.

I will try to spend some more time on this and add additional comments.

@eawoods
Copy link
Contributor Author

eawoods commented Mar 13, 2018

@DavidLFielding Thank you for the note about contrast on the search box outlines! I'd been a bit worried about it after seeing the site on the projector in Room 236. Do you see a box at all around "Tips"? I am considering boosting contrast for both the box outlines and the helper text inside the boxes (would apply to universal styling for the site, so all instances of input fields throughout).

@DavidLFielding
Copy link

DavidLFielding commented Mar 13, 2018 via email

@eawoods
Copy link
Contributor Author

eawoods commented Mar 13, 2018

Noted - the box border colors for tips and for input are controlled by variables, and I'll just boost those. Not sure how bright they need to be since there's no requirement for layout elements, but should definitely be at least a little bit visible!
404 on header search box - that happens to me also in my local environment, but it at least goes to the "old" search when fully deployed. (@erickpeirson the path is mapping to the wrong place - help?)

@erickpeirson
Copy link
Contributor

@DavidLFielding Regarding the documentation errors: looks like we had some outdated RST source files for the API documentation. I've updated those just now.

@DavidLFielding
Copy link

DavidLFielding commented Mar 13, 2018 via email

@eawoods
Copy link
Contributor Author

eawoods commented Mar 13, 2018

@DavidLFielding I'll come have a look at your monitor. In the meantime: http://arxiv.org/search-beta - not quite all the newest latest and greatest is deployed here but it was a staging exercise for the beta release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants