GitLab Backend Pairing, 27 Jul 2023

Previous Meeting

Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: BE Pairing - 2023-07-27 - support internal comments in GitLab triage

Description

Today we worked on adding a feature enhancement to GitLab triage to support posting internal comments

Issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/ruby/gems/gitlab-triage/-/issues/329

A

A

So we're going to have a look at uh get that triage gem, um which I can't remember how easy it is to test in isolation, um really easy. I.

B

B

A

B

I, try to run at least the test. Suite is pretty easy to run. I guess if you mean action testing, whether it works or not. That's another thing.

A

Yes, yes I think so, but what I think I may have done in the past, I mean whether we get that far or whether we want to or need to, but um I've used. The trail drops project and I I I've, never fully understood how it works, but edited like the whatever well, not the compiled gem, but like.

C

A

What triage shops is pointing at so that I can actually run.

B

A

Policy and see how it goes, but let's see what we can. Let's see what we can do. I will.

A

um My screens I'm in the.

C

Wrong projects.

A

At the moment, but hopefully I have yeah.

A

But it's safe around.

C

A

And are you happy if we do the confidential start with that? One.

B

uh Yeah I think so I think we should start with that one. Would it make sense to look at the issue first, just to set like the what.

A

We're trying to do here and what this even is just gonna pause. My share for a second while I get a nice clean web browser up.

D

um You mean you, don't have 400 tabs open, like movies.

A

Yeah exactly that and then it always so happens. Coincidentally, you've got like a confidential issue open or something. Oh, it's saved the embarrassment and trying.

D

Yes, I do try to. uh We think you would just try to upload these as public, so.

A

Yeah absolutely.

D

C

A

uh It's really got misleading.

A

To share again.

A

Put the wrong one open at the moment, but I hate that go in here: yeah yeah both are there awesome.

A

All right so at the moment our common function method, whatever you want to call it pretty much it. It just does what it says on the tin, it's pretty basic. It doesn't support any of the um a rest, API yeah, so I'm not sure what other modifiers or parameters there might be. There's probably very few anyway, but you cannot set an internal or confidential flag at the moment, notes and comments.

A

Yeah, so there's there's not a whole lot there anyway. In all honesty, um one.

B

Thing that stood out to me here, though, is that you see there are two of them. One called confidential, one called internal which are doing the same thing, but one was deprecated. It says scheduled to be removed in 160, which is for a few months ago.

A

I, don't know if it has been removed or not interested. My suspicion is probably not and I know I'm not going to get into this long-winded discussion about that pain from the API, because the API is V4 and it has been V4 since I. Remember, starting working with gitlab like five plus years ago, so technically we're not supposed to make any breaking changes to the API until we cannot to V5 yeah, but I, don't know if this sort of contrary or maybe that's the reason this. This has kind of happened.

D

Yeah and I think the the note what I have and what I have done with reviewers is um I, you mark it as deprecated. You tell them what else to use um I, don't think you can actually remove it even in a major release from the API I think this is the best I I like clearly this didn't get removed, or hopefully it didn't, and maybe this was what whatever sparked the discussion that I remember seeing, but yeah.

A

But but the good thing is at.

D

C

D

You to use that one and we'll make sure we use that one I think that's fine um yeah for the API. If you look for UI changes for sure you can like take things out and remove them and we have a deprecation process. But the API is like it's completely different and.

A

I think it's weird because it feels like we've kind of um I, don't know what the word is but like put ourselves in this situation for a reason: I, don't don't know if you're not because we're versioning the API separately to the the UI I guess: you'd call it, but um that's not for today, so yeah Instagram always is what we want to be able to set.

B

Yeah I suggested a way that like what this could look like, I, don't know if it's really any good just it was inspired because there is another. um If you look at the dogs for the triage gem, there's like there's a similar thing like this, that you can kind of modify what your comment will look like by adding another parameter like this um I. It felt a bit weird to me because I felt like it should be.

B

You know one level below comments like it should be comments the text and then is it internal, yes or no and not like I, don't know if I'm expressing it correctly, but you see the way I presented it here is like they're at the same level, which feels a bit weird, because one doesn't make sense without the other at all. Yeah.

A

So what was the existing um existing? You said there was something.

B

Similar yeah, if you scroll down a bit more there's a list at some point, there's like a menu with all the here. We go.

A

B

A similar list for all the actions, so if you just scroll a little bit more, maybe it'll be easier to find this way. I just can't remember which one it was um here. You can click on actions field, and this will bring you to okay, uh common type, I think it was then maybe the comment, type action option, action.

C

B

So this is a common action, but if you, if you scroll below this one, there's one called uh comment.

A

Sorry yeah exactly here, so you.

B

Know this can be like a comment or a thread, but it basically applies to I. Also assume it wouldn't make sense to just use this action without an actual common body right it, wouldn't it wouldn't mean anything or.

A

What would it even do? Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, absolutely so.

B

I feel like that's already in its current state, a bit not the best, maybe config, oh, but um we can be consistent with that. Just have another.

B

um You know another configuration field called whatever internal comment or something else, but.

A

So I'm just trying to wrap my head around. So you got a comment. You can only have Reds or merge requests right yeah. So we can't get away with having comment or thread or internal comment, because you can have an internal comment and an internal thread right.

B

uh uh What an internal thread would be a uh I, don't know what would it be? Is it just like a thread that starts with an internal comment and all the following ones are also internal or yeah.

A

What what I mean is like? We can't can't use this existing.

B

C

A

Like to use it, but I don't think we can, because that.

B

A

We create four like comment thread internal comment, internal thread, yeah.

B

I see what you mean, though,.

A

It is a bit maybe a bit bit much it.

B

Also feels like it kind of semantically would be a bit weird because internal, yes or no is kind of its own thing as far as the API is concerned, and has nothing to kind of completely, you know um nothing to do with the other one. So I wouldn't want to combine them. I.

A

Think uh fair enough: uh foreign, yeah, okay, okay, so yeah I see exactly what you're saying it's. It's kind of something to do with a comment so you'd expect it to be underneath or inside.

B

Yeah yeah, which is fine I, guess it just evolved. This way, probably an issue which is comment, and it was like it. This only needs to be a string, um but ideally it would be more like a dictionary, I guess, but I don't think we need to change that. It's okay.

A

Yeah, yeah and I think that's probably the problem right so when they wanted to introduce this, they didn't want.

B

A

And change and then have like multiple like: oh, you need to set a a type and a value or a type and a text. So that's exactly why they went down that that road, okay, so you're thinking similar yeah.

B

A true or false thing called yeah I wanted to start with. The word comment as well, so it would be at least Fields related, but then it was like comment internal and then there was like nah that doesn't really work in English I. Don't know.

A

C

B

In French, but like uh we're, not coding in French here so I.

A

I yeah I mean it's, it's not it's, but it it makes a lot of sense um and I guess if we get it functioning and working like that, then the naming convention is is kind of um I. Don't know what you want to call it um semantic and we.

B

Can yeah it's minor to change at least right? That's not worth it.

A

Yes, absolutely awesome.

B

The easiest thing to change, but also the hardest one, because naming is very hard, so yeah.

A

Yeah that comes up at the time and time again and uh yeah I definitely agree with that. So um I I can't really remember my way around the the code base.

B

So I had a look before um if you check out the what was it called the comment file I think it's called common Dot RB yeah um yeah that has a bunch of Builders like they're, building a bunch of commands because basically a few of these commands um or actions I guess are kind of what I'm calling secretly comments. Actions right, they're, just using quick action to do what they need to do so.

A

B

On line 58, you have the status command like status, action yeah, and if you look at the stocks, it's like okay status. You can pick open or close or reopen or close something like this yeah, um and it feels like it's completely independent from a comments actually, but it still is built here as a as a comment.

B

um I would actually now that I think about it. It wouldn't be a um now. It wouldn't be a separate com, no I get so I was thinking. Maybe we just have like a um command another command. Builder like this.

A

B

A

um I think I'd already come up with uh a theory. I don't know. um Let me remind myself: I might need to look at so swipe. Url.

A

A

Yes, here is where I think it needs to be.

A

So it's, how can we control.

A

B

Where's the shirt thing being done, like you know, the we were looking at common type, because the teal is pretty similar functionally right. It's like a modifier for your car for your comment. Maybe yeah.

A

I think I guess I'm more on the other end of not like. Where do we? Where do we sort of Drive the logic.

C

A

What what do we actually do need to do to um well, it's a post.

B

I think the build post URL there is where all the like, the actual like um you know, query parameters and stuff are being thrown in there. So that's probably.

B

I would assume this is inside of build post URL that we need to that's.

A

B

Building the internal thing I.

A

Guess so I mean I I think it's slightly weird to put it as part of the query string, but actually I I, don't see any reason why why.

C

Can you can't you.

A

Does our API care I, don't think it does if it's a HTT like if it's a get parameter or a post parameter? If you know I mean like if it's in the query screen or if it's in the post body.

B

I have no idea.

D

No I don't know I feel like it should be in the body, but I.

A

D

A

It's a body I'm interested by this post, API I'm, assuming that's, not something we've great! Oh, oh.

C

A

C

A

Magic that I've never seen before.

C

A

A

I'm trying to understand how, because the comment I presume is X I presume, but it might not be. um Let's go back a bit, you know come in, oh, it might not be. Let's learn.

A

Yeah I think it's just text, but my understanding is that what this somehow translates to.

D

It's gotta be text, that's just formatted, so that it can be posted as body. It looks like like it's kind of building text and then labels and then removes- and it needs to like that, build comment, method.

A

Yeah, what I'm kind of getting at is that um how can I certainly expire? So so what I expect the post request to look something like would be like post, URL and then body body text.

A

I know that sounds weird, but that's because this is the HTTP post requests body, and then this is the body assuming that I've got the right name for the parameter.

D

A

So in here we want our internal flag, true or false, so what I can't quite see from the syntactical Wizardry, that's going on here. What.

B

What's the rest API here, because this kind of looks like it's just a very thin wrapper on another.

D

Library, right, which is the other file, that's in there search rest, API, Network, sorry.

B

uh This is also ours, then.

A

Thanks for pointing out what was right in front of me,.

A

um So when we do a posts.

C

We've been working on the search team.

B

A

Yes, uh uh adapted up post token, URL body.

B

But this looks like body is actually the HTTP body right: okay,.

D

And it just has a tag called body inside of it or like a parameter attribute whatever you want.

A

uh That uh is that uh which we initialize at some point. uh This is where we end up down this rabbit, hole right.

A

Yeah I'm still a little bit Unsure how it's it's.

B

Gonna build build thing like like Terry was calling out. This function called build command like maybe that's the one that just spits out a dictionary that actually says body blah something else blah. um Maybe this one or or something.

A

B

Within one of these Builders, somehow I don't know uh yeah, maybe.

C

A

Just looks like it's kind of joining the array and that's it I'm, still not quite seeing where this extra body gets added in. If that makes sense.

A

So here we're passing body comment to this post API, what I'm unsure so.

D

Where's the call that's making that that thing that you were on. Where is that call I'm? Sorry I missed it. My team has an ongoing issue and I was kind of trying to follow along um so right before method. Where is that called from so.

A

Perform is called for up.

D

Here comment: build comment, oh so.

A

I'm I'm pretty confident I mean maybe we put a break point in it in a minute. Actually that probably, is the best way to do it. I'll see if I can run a test for a breakpoint but I, don't think I think this is just plain text: I, don't think it's got this this kind of opinion at this point so yeah. Let's, let's see if we can do that, um I don't need any other changes that just added that just added like that.

A

So yeah, let's see if there's a a spec that just kind of had comments back or something like that.

A

We make a post request, yeah perfect. This is exactly what I was hoping for. This is what I'm saying about you've got this weird, like nested body body thing, so.

C

C

A

Know that works because I've not changed anything now, if I.

A

C

At putting a break point in.

A

So maybe put one in here.

A

I just want to check at that point.

C

A

C

A

Yeah, so it's plain text still at this point, um so I'm going to move. What did I put my you know, move it in a bit deeper to try and figure out where I.

D

Feel like yeah, maybe the the sending the key value pair in that method makes it like become the Json yeah.

A

D

Ruby way that it does things where it's like- oh yes, this is now hash or whatever.

A

uh Let's say something about Native braai is pretty damn much.

C

A

um Let's go into here: okay, that's interesting!.

A

I, guess are we not all in post, I think.

B

It was the rest API, post API, wasn't there two of them or can you scroll up a little bit? uh I know, maybe not maybe I'm wrong.

A

Post API I bet we are mocking.

C

A

Yeah, where we're only mocking the actual HTTP call I think.

C

A

And the fact that I was hitting my binding prey in.

C

A

I would really expect him to isn't it just because I'm not.

C

C

C

C

A

C

A

A

And then at least I can try and step.

C

A

C

A

B

C

A

B

You print a body at this point to see what it looks like. Okay,.

A

It's going straight to this one: it's not going to this one for some reason.

C

um Yeah absolutely absolutely.

A

So it's already Yes I, Terry I, think your spot on I think. If we.

D

Feel like, if you add the I'm, not sure if you need to add the curly braces around it, but maybe we'll.

A

D

Just to make it explicit for the reader I don't know if it's required or not, but it feels like um it might be. Nice.

A

So I'm just going to try it with that, because I'm just curious to see if it actually works.

A

Oops, yes, okay, so that works now, if we make it an object or a hash, it's a hatch, more accurate.

A

um Does that work as well.

A

Yep yeah I think you're right, I think that's nice! All right! I've.

B

I've I think I have to say as someone who knows absolutely no Ruby. This makes no sense to me at all I'm like what what just happened there.

A

So, let's just have another look at this Okay, so we've got a body.

B

So we were passing it a body and it is it. It knew like it's assuming oh yeah. This actually should be a dictionary, so I'll just make what one for you not.

A

Quite nearly um okay, so my understanding is and Terry's probably much much better bursting Ruby than me. But when you've got.

D

Yeah yeah normal.

A

Parameters, normal Arguments, for a method- you you don't need like I- could just call it by doing like post, API, Bob Dave, and that will pass those two values to the relevant sort.

C

A

Parameters, if I do a named sort of argument um well day like that, then it will. It will kind of take all of that and pass it to the parameter it won't just take like. Oh sorry, it'll.

B

Make this a dictionary and say this parameter has is this is a dictionary so.

A

Pretty much it's saying that this, this isn't a value. This is like more than a value. This is an object, so yeah I, I, think implicitly.

C

A

So we want to go just like okay, there's, two things we want to pass now. We want to pass this as well, so we're being a bit more explicit now, rather.

B

Than being implicit, this makes sense. Obviously,.

A

We we now need to wire this up somewhere, which is I kind of think, where you will probably want it.

B

Yeah yeah, oh yeah, it could start anywhere, but this makes this makes sense. Sorry one last question about this thing. So does it mean that like does Ruby support, name parameters at all like if you can you make yeah.

C

A

B

So how does it distinguishes between the two if the names.

A

B

In this case, you.

A

Know you can do body, uh oh God, there's two ways: I could do body equals that for it to be an optional one, but you can also do that.

D

Right, yeah, sorry, yeah.

B

But then what does it look like? Because if I say but like we have now body calling something? How.

C

Does it know if.

A

C

B

Saying this is the parameter, we're.

A

For this one it looks exactly the same as it currently does for this one you have to explicitly so it would then I'm going to use the term deconstruct. So if you then did your post API body Dave, then it would just pass the Dave bit to the parameter named body.

B

But isn't that what we were doing before with body column comments, so why would it pass? Why.

A

Would it not pass this comments because it's not a named argument, you.

B

Have to say that it is one by adding this extra body colon in there is that is that what you're saying.

A

Okay, I understand: okay, okay,.

C

Now I understand better so.

B

By default, parameters in a method are not named like they're, not like.

D

Basically, no and I think that.

B

D

Special behavior only happens when it's the last value like for it to understand it being I think and they also Ruby 3 introduced some changes in how all of that stuff is interpreted and I would have to go back and look through it um through through the docs. It's it's I think if you have only a few method arguments, it's fine to just have them in the way that they are that way, but it gets confusing for a feeling it gets confusing for the reader.

D

If you have something that's like expecting, you know a hash or you know an object or whatever you want to call it, and it's.

B

D

B

Especially here, where, like we expect the hash that has a key, that is the same as the hash yeah.

A

That's like it's very confusing.

D

A

Really makes things hard, yeah, absolutely I.

D

Feel like it's also a nightmare nice when you have all of the parameters kind of be like named or like the ones where they have the colons, because then you could send it in any order. Yeah.

B

Ruby's not.

C

D

Type safe and you.

A

Don't know what time you have, but it's you.

D

Know like what you have.

A

It's funny because I I sort of come from a.net world and C sharp and like I I, used to just use the like order based parameters, but then you know moved across to the named parameters, because it is a much more like you say, flexible and it also avoids any kind of accidental. Oh we've, we've passed this value to this parameter and we've transposed them. Etc so named is quite nice. I I do admit.

A

So. The question is: how does this so? The common action.

A

I'm trying to figure out so this is the I.

B

Think the resource object here is kind of like the key, because you see it says um build. It builds a common based on a resource but like what's the resource like? What does it contain? Is it the rule? Is it I know it's the issue itself that was detected by the triage bar? So maybe that's not that's like the targets, maybe not the uh wow.

A

I don't know because if it's capable of building the comment purely from the resource, then it must have enough information in there to.

B

A

To do that um so I.

B

Thought this because in the docs it talks a lot about like the word resources used to mean essentially the target sort of issues or epics and what it is you're right. It could still be a naming problem. It.

A

Might be that we include in the resource, we include the rule or.

C

A

Called so I'm gonna hope that this, if the.

C

D

There's a y in binding like an extra y there, you go amazing.

A

B

You finding it it's more binding.

A

um Okay, so now we can have a look and see what resources.

D

Oh, what's it's just a hash, but.

B

A

B

Right so it's not.

A

Okay, nothing but the config in here. So how does build comment? No, ah it's got access. We've got access to the policy. There you go there, you go, we've got access to the policy, that's in I, guess some kind of global somewhere.

A

B

A

B

You print the policy and that okay, so the policy will contain the flood. Basically right, yeah.

A

I think so so, um where it is, we've got our kind of work uh options.

A

I've got clearing yeah.

A

The policy directions, yeah policy to actions I think will be what we want.

D

So that's testing, um it's not making a comment. It's just mentioning a user and adding labels.

D

If you could find a spec where maybe it's testing comment, yep.

C

Sounds good I, don't.

D

Know this is very confusing, but I feel like I understand. Maybe when adding a comment and.

C

Then we can add a.

D

Spec that says, when adding.

A

D

A

In internal, yes,.

A

So now our policy directions beautiful.

A

um Yeah I I think you're right. That's that's a good! Let's um this one's a bit bigger than I want, but.

A

Sure we must be able to tidy this up later today, but that's fine.

A

Where's it getting so actions I'm. Reading labels, Etc right call actions. Hash do comment type, so we can add in our comment internal into our action. Slash.

C

A

Or expect and then.

C

A

A

um Maybe I should.

A

A

I'm actually passing it already Arnold, so I'm quite surprised, I was gonna, say: I didn't break any space, but I didn't actually run I need to know whether I've broken the monarch.

A

That would all be right.

A

Yeah, that should be fine, so we've got a binder Prime.

A

Okay, um I've been kind of I I'm a little bit surprised that that passes, but I think um this no no.

D

A

I've put that in um I just want I'm interested to know if it passes. Without that.

C

D

Awesome, it should have passed because you added false right and so right.

A

Yeah yeah, so I I've kind of hard coated false at the moment yeah. So um it makes sense. I wasn't sure if the ball's default value was false, if this would pass without this explicitly being stated, but it makes.

D

Sense so yeah I think it makes sure that, like what exactly what you tell it, if.

C

It doesn't, it gets.

D

If it doesn't get called with that, then it's like hey you.

C

Missed something.

A

Now this one should definitely fail because it's um expecting internal to be true, but it's false because we've not wired anything up anywhere to pass this through. So the question is: um where do we I guess if we look at where common type is handled, that might help us a little bit.

A

So it's actually in common stub resource type, cool.

C

A

So it should be as simple as policy actions. Sure there'll be a nicer way of doing this, but um should we do like a.

B

I mean it's going to be straight up: you could have a separate function, I guess for it, but it'll be a single line. Right it'll be just.

A

Yeah, whether there's any magic needed for like an old checking on it, but probably not.

A

Yeah because um yeah I mean clients do that, maybe.

D

I think that's fine. If it's not sent, then it will be. If it's not set, it should be false.

B

So, what's up with the double estimation Mark, there I.

A

Think converting it to a ball basically, because if, if it's now like it's I, don't know that it's necessarily false. Although no.

C

A

A faulty value, so by doing the not you, will convert something into a ball, but it'll have the opposite value to what you want it to have. So by doing it twice, you basically convert it to a ball. Okay,.

B

D

B

D

I first saw this I just opened up IRB and I'm like okay, I, don't know if it wasn't doing so. I would like read the code until I was like. Oh okay, now.

A

That's that's a good chance. So if we do like nil returns, new, um not new returns, true, not not near returns,.

C

A

Then, if it's some other value so not true, but not true,.

D

C

D

B

So yeah, like I, said it's like a Boolean conversion, which is fine, yeah.

A

Which is now safe, essentially um yeah and.

B

In this case, it's okay, because if it was to be nil, we want to default to actually want.

D

B

D

Existing Behavior, which.

C

Is yeah I think like if someone because it's originally worked.

D

Like that, we want to the default Behavior should yeah.

B

Yes and luckily new is false because well it is I.

A

Guess exactly exactly um so. The only thing okay now is of.

A

A

Oh, no, they should be function.

A

D

That's a lot of failures, I think it's because we have to change the stubs um for everything to now have internal false.

A

Okay, so now I'm wondering if we can, she.

C

D

I feel like we should only send it, and that would.

A

C

The number of changes.

D

That we um have.

A

Yeah sounds good, so you know.

D

Maybe if you pull that, like body out um or like I, don't know what you want to call the pram. If you pull that whole line 6 to 8 out into its own.

D

C

D

What request s.

D

Like um and then you can add to it, if we should add internal like you can merge internal true, if, um if the internal Paramus, that's true or something.

C

D

I didn't mean a method, but we could see how this works. Yeah.

A

I'm gonna tell you something like um here.

B

To see the Ruby way to fancy way to kind of conditionally add a key value or not to the hash yeah.

A

I guess we'll just.

D

Merge dot, merge, um yeah.

A

I'm gonna have to get rid of the internal pulses.

C

A

D

I will say um once the suite's done. We might look at refactoring that just a little bit um absolutely.

A

D

This works in everything.

A

D

Good yeah I, don't know if we um yeah I think.

A

Because no, we can't do that.

C

D

Hold on a second I'm going to test something out: IRB I, don't know.

C

B

Can they be a manager and ask why do you feel this needs refactoring.

D

D

So I don't know if it needs a refactor, but I feel like if someone got this in review like if I got. If this was my MRI and I get a review, I feel like they might make like a non-blocking suggestion to say um maybe a little bit less risky to not uh use the merged. Exclamation point I feel like like modifying the existing object. Gotcha.

C

D

Then what I was testing in IRB was: what is the dot merge without the exclamation point return, and if that returns like a modified object, then maybe we could just return. Oh, we can't because we're only doing an if statement.

A

That's that's yeah! That's why I think we need this um yeah.

D

So hmm yeah, maybe it was but I, don't know.

A

Just I want to just remind myself to make sure that that does fail. It.

D

Will fail right? It better fail. Yeah, okay, like it.

B

Better there isn't like a merge unless or merge if or something like this right. It's.

D

Just merged no better modifies or not yeah, and maybe this is okay I, don't know, I feel like I think we usually follow the Ruby style guide and I would look in there um to see. But this is functional.

D

And this allows us to modify.

A

Asking a friend quickly.

D

Yeah I feel, like the only other thing this one doesn't have Rubicon on it, cop on it, but 110 is missing a space after the comment and I I get things on that a lot of mine, it's making I feel like I, don't know, I, don't notice you X issues when people are like the spacing on this is off, but for some reason in code, I notice when spaces are missing.

D

Oh look at that. It's okay!

D

Oh there you go! So we don't need to use merge. We can use body internally and I'm glad we have this so.

C

D

um It's a symbol, yeah and we got another.

D

A

Know because I haven't given it a name for the. What's that, uh when adding.

D

An internal comment: yeah.

A

C

Should be able to simplify this before.

D

Maybe then we don't need to have it say with leading and trailing white spaces. We can just have it be when adding an internal comment and then thank.

A

D

um That it would need to be updated. It posts the comment internally, I, don't know.

B

Oh yeah post an internal comment: I guess: I, don't know.

D

Oh I think line 159 might need single quotes around the text. I think yeah.

A

Yeah, yes, I think you're right, I'm thinking that uh yaml syntax.

C

D

A

China White space.

D

And then I would just change 165 to what uh Francois suggested, maybe like it posts, an internal comment or something like that. I don't know. The verbiage is not as important to me as what it says. Oh that doesn't make any sense. I.

C

Don't know how to say it, but like.

D

How it's written doesn't matter as much as what it means.

A

I'm spitting feeling quite happy about where it's.

D

uh You know we.

A

Need to this is nice.

D

Oh yeah, so, okay, so we're making this change um that supports internal comments.

D

I I apologize if I missed this. Is this where the internal comment would be used or are there other projects using this triage tool? That would then change what they do. Yeah.

A

So it would be the triage Ops project would be the primary one that gitlab we're using dog food and whatever you want to call it, but then, potentially our customers uses anyone else in the world could be using it as well. Yeah.

B

And this is where this came from by the way is because, like we use it internally, but we've never had the need for it to post internal comments, which is fine, um but I was I'm basically in the process of making a demo for how to use this gem to process like to triage service, desk issues and services issues. The thing with them is like: if you post a comment on them, it sends an email, but they get. The comments are translated as email and they.

D

B

Reach your customers so like you would probably often want to yeah.

D

Because the original components.

C

Basically, are.

D

Probably almost always like is service desk zendesk, or is it different.

B

Yeah I mean you, could it's like git last version of zendes, but it's extremely it's a very limited feature set at this point, but it's um it's. It's mostly like yeah issues and comments on issues via email kind of thing. So you.

D

Can but if you're having like internal discussions, you don't want necessary.

B

Exactly yeah to.

D

Go out to the broader yeah.

B

Everyone that's involved.

D

In the issue, okay,.

B

Yeah exactly so so people do use internal comments, a lot on Services issues but like if you had an automation like a triage automation, you know most likely it's going to post comments that are like internal. Only it's like oh um Team. This has been open for 30 days. Let's do something you know, but you don't want your customers to actually see that, like.

D

No one's looking at yourself, hey! We noticed that you haven't been doing anything on this, and maybe you might want to look at it. No, that makes total sense. This.

A

D

A really good um piece to add to that feature.

A

B

Yeah, it's like a small win, but I think could be pretty useful. Actually um so, let's, let's it's nice that we, it seemed pretty easy enough to implement at least so that was nice. um Or are we missing anything else or is that that's kind of like the extent of it obviously docs and stuff, but.

D

B

C

A

Right now, yeah yeah whipping super quick.

D

Would we want to keep the comment type in there as an example or.

A

um It doesn't hurt, but I don't feel it's necessary. I.

B

Would say no just to like I feel like the minimum that is yeah I would say that, and maybe the text could be something that sounds very very like internal, like, oh, hey team, uh can you make sure to look at this issue or or.

A

Whatever, maybe something like.

B

Oh hey, this is really sensitive or I found some really sensitive data about this or whatever I, don't know something that sounds pretty like internal. Basically,.

C

A

I, don't know whether to sort of say like true what what values, no I'm, I'm, gentlemen,.

D

um Yeah I, don't.

B

Know at fourth with default in parentheses, I saw this somewhere else. um Maybe that could be useful um if you like this on your comment and thread.

A

B

So maybe you just have a bullet point list of like true and false and true relative uh forces default.

D

Oh, we go above that go there's one for like false. Go up a little bit more there you go. That's read that confidential resources so that you could use that.

D

To false or not set so I think there you go, uh the comment will be.

D

I guess the comment will be visible, but everyone.

C

A

I I, like for wine, 9, 22. I, don't think we should try and explain what an internal comment.

D

C

We can change the.

A

Definition of an extra an internal comment at a future day, we.

D

Just keep it simple: we just need to change 9 20 to that, like that, the the opposite uh data.

B

The comment will not be internal. The comment it.

D

Will not be internal is all I meant. Yeah sounds good.

C

D

And then I would also recommend getting a documentation review if you feel necessary, um especially if it's going to be consumed by customers or any external resources.

D

I always think my docs are great, but then I get a documentation review.

D

Why even know English, sometimes I don't know.

B

Oh hey good news: my uncle shift is over for the past 45 seconds. All right, awesome.

A

I I I've lost my clock because the zoom like green box is covering it are. We are we at time. Are we we're.

B

Exactly on time now, yeah but um yeah, so maybe we can recap. Is there anything? That's still left for this that we would need to do uh after this call like.

A

No well I I thought we were done and then all of a sudden I was like. Oh don't forget the docs.

C

So I thought I'll.

A

Quickly whip in here and throw something together there, but um no.

C

A

I I, I, I, suppose I. What I would call what I don't think it's the tech, the right technical term, but I would call a functional test like it would be good for us to actually be able to run it. The.

B

Trade out yeah um I can do that actually I think because I'm currently experimenting with stuff like this anyway. So if you push this in a branch, I could try it out locally um on this test project. I'm working with right now, perfect.

A

um Oh sounds good um yeah, I'll I'll, push it up and um share the well I'll. Take you in in a moment- um and you know if you fancy braving the other other one having a stabbed yourself. I think it was more of a language change, but.

C

I'm not sure how.

A

Intelligent you wanted to be, and try and sort of look at the content and.

B

I, don't know uh I'm not sure either I'm also happy to be challenged on this. So you posted a comment. There I also replied just uh before this session.

C

B

Let's see where we land on first before making any changes, maybe it's not a good suggestion as well right, so we can.

A

See yeah I I, definitely like clarify I've got a couple more seconds.

B

A

Well is something that's syncing up probably will help slightly um so yeah. At the moment it says the following comments would be posted, but what you're saying is we're actually posting that, as a comment doesn't actually post a comment? Yeah.

B

And it's gonna sleep. It is worrying because you see I'm like oh I'm, setting up stuff for my services right. It's like I, really don't want comments to be posted. Yeah.

C

By the way, the.

B

Internal thing completely alleviates this because I could just say internal, true and I wouldn't be worried anymore. That's.

A

True, that's that's.

B

Nice, maybe we could have it say like. Oh, the following internal comments will be posted. That would be amazing. Yeah.

A

Maybe yeah absolutely so.

B

That could be another solution to this by.

A

This and then yeah so I know you, you interpret it so yeah. Let me verbalize my one quickly, so it's I I think a number of the things um are available in the actions So like.

A

um So yeah you've got like your comment: action your move, action, etc, etc. But I imagine certain things: I add in a due date or removing a due date or I'm sure there are quick actions that aren't available as actions yeah.

B

A

Only way to to sort of process them would be to use the.

C

A

Action but put your your quick actions inside the comment.

B

Yes, so, as a person writing a rule right like you're, writing your own you're, like oh, this.

A

Thing doesn't support.

B

This as an action so I'll add it as an inside my column. Yes,.

A

Yeah yeah, so um in that instance, uh our thing it would have to be quite clever to try and determine.

B

If I see what you're saying yeah yeah so.

A

I thought, maybe if we just made this message a bit woolier um and sort of said that you know it will it will submit a comment or post the comment or add a note or something like that.

A

um If the note only contains quick actions, then you know the result will be what my term was any comment, including any quick actions will be submitted, but result in no comment being posted to this. So that was me being a bit like cheating and and not being intelligent and just saying well, we'll just explain that these scenarios, but you know I'm I'm, happy either way. I agree that you know it'd be nice to clarify and improve that message. A bit yeah.

B

I mean I I really think now that like. If, because it's no matter, we cannot distinguish I, guess or probably it will be difficult and not worth it to distinguish whether the comments, that's only quick actions is only quick actions because of us. You know us or because of their supporters as actions via quick actions or because the rule, the one person who wrote the rule added only quick actions to their. So it's like suddenly it becomes very complicated and not really valuable, I think so. The I think the main I go back to like.

B

What's the problem here as me, as a user of this gym is like I'm worried that a comment will be posted so again, I do think that I even thought about it. After I wrote this whole thing up. I was like the only reason I have this problem now is because I cannot post internal comments.

C

B

Know if I could then I'll be fine, because well I still need to remember this and you know, but so I would almost suggest like. Yes, we could put this node in because that's probably easy and doesn't hurt kind of yeah.

C

B

Bit makes the output a bit longer, and you know um more with more words, but yeah I would be I'll, be very happy if we could say like the following internal comments. For example, if that.

A

That should be a very binary right.

B

Yeah that feel like it should be easier unless the comments there, like the following comments and they're like you know all listed, and some of them might be internal some not so. This is where it might become a bit hairy again where it's like. So maybe it need to be the following comments and another the following internal comments, which could be annoying also yeah,.

A

B

Feel like this could be maybe a better path, but also again kind of reiterating I think with internal comments enabled this is much less of a big deal. Kind of um we might even just drop it entirely and go on and do better things with our lives. I, don't know I.

A

I think at the end, it might be like this one like once you poke around and try.

C

Changing something.

A

You'll soon have a feel, but because you know this, we knocked out in an hour and might take another hour or two like merge. Request reviews responding to comments tweaking it. um If, if you can achieve similar in an hour with.

B

A

Improving that message then you'll probably take it as a nice, quick, win and.

C

A

It's a can of worms that you'll, probably step back.

B

Exactly yeah, so maybe I'll leave a I'll leave. Another comment to that issue as well about the fact that you know, since we're gonna get internal comments pretty soon. um We could instead, as a solution, do something quite a little bit different than what I initially suggested. Yeah.

A

Yeah awesome awesome, um good stuff. Thanks very much I'll um push up the uh push up the branch tiger on it and.

D

Yeah, thank you. I see you already linked the issue, so I will upload the recording and link to the. If you uh in the description, so I'm going to stop the recording now.

A

Amazing I thought.