Skip to content

Conversation

@s2quake
Copy link
Contributor

@s2quake s2quake commented Apr 9, 2024

  • Added the code UseGas to all DPoS-related Action.Execute
  • The constructor access modifier for some actions is changed from internal to public.

@s2quake s2quake requested review from OnedgeLee and limebell April 9, 2024 01:48
@s2quake s2quake self-assigned this Apr 9, 2024
@s2quake s2quake marked this pull request as ready for review April 9, 2024 01:48
@s2quake s2quake changed the title Fix test fails due to missing UseGas in DPoS Fix failing test by adding UseGas in DPoS Apr 9, 2024
@s2quake s2quake merged commit 443a5d4 into planetarium:feature/dpos Apr 9, 2024
@s2quake s2quake deleted the fix/test-fails-missing-usegas branch April 9, 2024 02:04
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 11 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +9 -2
Percentile : 4.4%

Total files changed: 7

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +9 -2

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants