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

Bump flytekitplugins-* dependency versions in plugin examples #132

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 18, 2021

Conversation

sbrunk
Copy link
Member

@sbrunk sbrunk commented Mar 12, 2021

No description provided.

@kumare3
Copy link
Contributor

kumare3 commented Mar 12, 2021

Looks good to me use --signoff to sign it as per LinuxFoundation guidelines

wild-endeavor
wild-endeavor previously approved these changes Mar 12, 2021
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 346 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of 50 to 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +209 -137
Percentile : 74.6%

Total files changed: 17

Change summary by file extension:
.txt : +202 -130
.in : +7 -7

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 detetcted.
  • 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.

@kumare3
Copy link
Contributor

kumare3 commented Mar 13, 2021

conflict resolve?

@sbrunk sbrunk force-pushed the update-flytekitplugins branch from 5075ac3 to 837cd0b Compare March 14, 2021 09:31
@sbrunk
Copy link
Member Author

sbrunk commented Mar 14, 2021

Rebased against master and updated to flytekit 0.16.0b17. We should wait for another flytekit release containing the kfpytorch fix though before merging this one.

@kumare3
Copy link
Contributor

kumare3 commented Mar 17, 2021

@sbrunk you can now update and fix it?

@sbrunk sbrunk force-pushed the update-flytekitplugins branch from 837cd0b to f79d258 Compare March 18, 2021 07:28
@sbrunk
Copy link
Member Author

sbrunk commented Mar 18, 2021

@sbrunk you can now update and fix it?

@kumare3 done

@kumare3 kumare3 merged commit ad4032d into flyteorg:master Mar 18, 2021
@sbrunk sbrunk deleted the update-flytekitplugins branch March 18, 2021 16:23
kumare3 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2021
* Bump flytekitplugins-* dependency versions in plugin examples

Signed-off-by: Sören Brunk <[email protected]>

* Update examples to flytekit* 0.16.0

Signed-off-by: Sören Brunk <[email protected]>

* Bump flytekitplugins-* version in READMEs

Signed-off-by: Sören Brunk <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants