Modify issue template to accommodate new tabular format #585
Conversation
To streamline budgeting. As detailed here: bisq-network/projects#32
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NACK, just a a few nits to resolve, see review comments.
Note that I've updated the parsed:* labels to link to their associated documentation in the wiki, as we do with other process-oriented labels.
Also, can someone refer me to a test issue where linting/parsing failed? I haven't seen this for myself yet.
|
|
||
| ## Roles performed | ||
| Example 2 - role (note the asterisk): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the significance of the asterisk?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No significance to the bot, it ignores any asterisk after the team name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah the bot currently ignores it, but its purpose is to mark line-items for roles (so that they can be distinguished from regular work-delivered line-items).
I figure this will be useful when we start aggregating qualitative assessments of issuance. Role contributions can be thought of as the project's 'overhead', and tracking the proportion of overhead in relation to overall issuance could be useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I think that without further change, people won't get that they should mark role entries with an asterisk. It's just too subtle / not explicit enough here. But I wouldn't personally hold up the merge on it at this point. If it's something that people should do, I'd recommend saying that clearly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed with 1b94f34. Will probably still need to remind people, lead by example, etc., but role owners are mostly core/active contributors so it should be ok.
ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md
Outdated
| @@ -1,25 +1,59 @@ | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Compensation requests have a specific format that enables them to be parsed programmatically for more efficient budgeting. Please make sure you stick to the template. A linter will evaluate your request after you remove [WIP] from the issue title and notify you of any issues. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'linter' is used here, 'parser' is used below. Might be best to use a single term, since it is a single bot doing the work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True but there are 2 processes -- linting before voting and then parsing after voting, which is why 2 terms were used. But I agree a consistent term would probably be clearer for users so I've changed it.
|
Also mention that contributions table includes roles performed.
For consistency.
| --> | ||
| - **BSQ requested**: **`[BSQ amount]`** <!-- [BSQ amount] should be: USD amount / BSQ rate --> | ||
| - USD requested: [USD amount] <!-- [USD amount] should be: total of all contributions listed in "contributions delivered" table below --> | ||
| - BSQ rate: [rate] USD per BSQ <!-- [rate] should be the rate used to determine the BSQ amount above, as specified in the cycle's rate announcement (https://bisq.wiki/Compensation_Maintainer#Announce_BSQ-USD_rate) --> | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - Previous compensation request: # <!-- Link to last compensation request submitted --> | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jmacxx would such a change require any modifications to bot code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any impact to the bot by that change. Presumably the user would link back to their previous compensation request.
To streamline budgeting. The proposed template is virtually identical to the one proposed a short while ago. Only differences are updated wiki links and minor wording tweaks.
As discussed here:
bisq-network/projects#32
And documented here:
https://bisq.wiki/Compensation#Ensure_your_request_is_valid