Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Reviewing with Phabricator (and Datatracker integration)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:33:12 -0400

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:43 PM Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> On May 31, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> I would be interested in the experiences of other ADs.
>>
>
> I think Warren has spent a little time on it.
>
>
>
​Yup, Warren has spent some time on it, and there are some bits which he
loves, and some bits which are less than great.

The bits which he doesn't like (much of this may be user error):
1: I'd like there to be an easier way to ​find what drafts I need to review
- currently I go to the agenda, find a draft name, and then search for that
in Phabricator.

2: I do my reviews on an iPad, reading and annotating (using GoodReader)
the PDFs. This is partly because I like the layout / ease of annotation,
but also because I do a lot of this on planes and similar, where I have no
Internets. I'd like some magic way for this to integrate (note the "magic"
in the previous sentence).

3: I complete the review, and then copy and paste the review bits into the
Datatracker manually. Basically I am using Phabricator simply as a
stand-alone code review tool, without any of the integrations, etc.

None of these are Phabricator's fault, rather a: my not having figured out
a work flow yet, and b: the fact that it isn't really integrated with
Datatracker.

I'm also somewhat confused about how multiple people's reviews would
interact with each others -- it almost feels like each AD having their own
separate instance would make more sense (but this might be because, until
now, we've largely worked separately.

So, with the "bits that I don't like" out of the way:
I really like how easy it is to indicate where in a document the issue /
nits are.

As an example:
" Section: Abstract

   This document discusses most common scenarios of connecting an

O: discusses most common
P: discusses the most common"

Copying and pasting the above is a huge waste of time (probably 25
seconds per), being able to scroll in Phabricator, click a line and
say "add 'the'" is much faster and more efficient.

There is also the issue at the end of the process -- if I've submitted
15 comments scattered throughout the document, it is a massive waste
of time to confirm that all have been addressed -- Phabricator makes
this much better.

So, some more / better tooling around this to:

1: provide links from the telechat agenda (or a clone of the telechat
page with links to Phabricator)

2: some way to autogenerate the ballot for users other than EKR.

3: encouraging people to use this instead of the current only emil system

all seem like they would be great.

W

> I would like to know how easy it would be for Directorates and Review
>> Teams to leverage your work.
>>
>
> Understanding that would, I think, require understanding how those tools
> work. I don't have a real sense of how those tools work. I know Tero has
> some secdir stuff. Does everyone have their own thing?
>
>
> No.  The datatracker supports all of the reviews in a manner similar to
> ballots.  The reviewer two options.  First, the reviewer puts text into a
> frame on a datatracker page, and then the datatracker turns it into email.
> This is very similar to the way IESG ballots are handled.  Second, the
> reviewer sends his own email and give the datatracker the URL into the mail
> archive.
>
> Your description makes me wonder if this tooling could work with an API
> related to the first approach.
>
> Russ
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [email-masked]
>
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [email-masked]
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:13:41 -0700

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 1: I'd like there to be an easier way to ​find what drafts I need to
> review - currently I go to the agenda, find a draft name, and then search
> for that in Phabricator.
>

This I actually do have some tooling for: the system will automatically
scrape the agenda and assign things for you to review. It doesn't work
perfectly though, because it currently just adds them to your list and it
doesn't run them automatically.

> in the previous sentence).

This I don't know how to fix.

> stand-alone code review tool, without any of the integrations, etc.

This should actually just work, if you run my tools locally with iphab.py
ballot <whatever>. Have you tried?

> now, we've largely worked separately.

Yeah, basically you just end up with a zillion comments from different
people. I wonder if that's good?

As above, this should work now. Can you try?

-Ekr

> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the first place.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:20:07 -0400

> On Jun 15, 2018, at 12:13 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:43 PM Russ Housley <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>> On May 31, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> ​Yup, Warren has spent some time on it, and there are some bits which he loves, and some bits which are less than great.
> 
> 1: I'd like there to be an easier way to ​find what drafts I need to review - currently I go to the agenda, find a draft name, and then search for that in Phabricator.
> 
> This I actually do have some tooling for: the system will automatically scrape the agenda and assign things for you to review. It doesn't work perfectly though, because it currently just adds them to your list and it doesn't run them automatically.

The use of the word "scrape" makes me wonder if you are using the JSON form of the telechat agenda: http://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/agenda.json <http://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/agenda.json>

Russ

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:21:48 -0700

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The use of the word "scrape" makes me wonder if you are using the JSON
> form of the telechat agenda: http://datatracker.
> ietf.org/iesg/agenda/agenda.json
>

Yes, I use the JSON form.

-Ekr

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:56:18 -0400

> ballot <whatever>. Have you tried?

​Nope. So far all I've been doing is using the
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/
<https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5132> instance, and have not
yet tried any of your tools -- they sound like they accomplish much of what
I'm looking for.

W

>
>
>
> None of these are Phabricator's fault, rather a: my not having figured
>> out a work flow yet, and b: the fact that it isn't really integrated with
>> Datatracker.
>>