ea74955a66
Summary: In #394, we uppercased the constants for GitHub node types. However, we were using string literals instead of constants in the test cases. These test cases were supposed to cover every error path, but instead ended up just covering the “bad type” error path many times. Any one of the following would have prevented this regression: 1. using string constants instead of literals in the test case; 2. throwing and checking more precise error messages; or 3. being alerted that coverage decreased as a result of the change. In this commit, we enact the first of these options. I’m open to adding a coverage bot, but don’t feel strongly about it at this time. Test Plan: Running `yarn coverage` now shows 100% coverage for the `nodes.js` module, whereas previously almost all `throw fail();` lines were uncovered (and the branch coverage was just 76%). wchargin-branch: fix-github-node-error-tests |
||
|---|---|---|
| config | ||
| flow-typed/npm | ||
| scripts | ||
| src | ||
| .eslintrc.js | ||
| .flowconfig | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| .prettierignore | ||
| .prettierrc.json | ||
| .travis.yml | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| README.md | ||
| package.json | ||
| yarn.lock | ||
README.md
SourceCred
Vision
Open source software is amazing, and so are the creators and contributors who share it. How amazing? It's difficult to tell, since we don't have good tools for recognizing those people. Many amazing open-source contributors labor in the shadows, going unappreciated for the work they do.
As the open economy develops, we need to go beyond commit streaks and follower counts. We need transparent, accurate, and fair tools for recognizing and rewarding open collaboration. SourceCred aims to do that.
SourceCred will enable projects to create and track "cred", which is a quantitative measure of how much value different contributors added to a project. We'll do this by providing a basic data structure—a cred graph—into which projects can add all kinds of information about the contributions that compose it. For example, a software project might include information about GitHub pull requests, function declarations and implementations, design documents, community support, documentation, and so forth. We'll also provide an algorithm (PageRank) which will ingest all of this information and produce a "cred attribution", which assigns a cred value to each contribution, and thus to the people who authored the contributions.
Principles
SourceCred aims to be:
-
Transparent
If it's to be a legitimate and accepted way of tracking credit in projects, cred attribution can't be a black-box. SourceCred will provide tools that make it easy to dive into the cred attribution, and see exactly why contributions were valued the way they were.
-
Community-controlled
At the end of the day, the community of collaborators in a project will know best which contributions were important and deserve the most cred. No algorithm will do that perfectly on its own. To that end, we'll empower the community to modify the cred attribution, by adding human knowledge into the cred graph.
-
Forkable
Disputes about cred attribution are inevitable. Maybe a project you care about has a selfish maintainer who wants all the cred for themself :(. Not to worry—all of the cred data will be stored with the project, so you are empowered to solve cred disputes by forking the project.
Roadmap
SourceCred is currently in a very early stage. We are working full-time to develop a MVP, which will have the following basic features:
-
Create: The GitHub Plugin populates a project's GitHub data into a Contribution Graph. SourceCred uses this seed data to produce an initial, approximate cred attribution.
-
Read: The SourceCred Explorer enables users to examine the cred attribution, and all of the contributions in the graph. This reveals why the algorithm behaved the way that it did.
-
Update: The Artifact Plugin allows users to put their own knowledge into the system by adding new "Artifact Nodes" to the graph. An artifact node allows users to draw attention to contributions (or groups of contributions) that are particularly valuable. They can then merge this new information into the project repository, making it canonical.
Community
Please consider joining our Discord chat or posting on our forum.