This involves declaring the 20220603-variant-a the winner of the past
experiment; note in the past experiment there was not a statistically
significant winner.
This new experiment adds a variant that deviates from the new
incumbentby way of reintroducing the follows an author and adjusting the
tag follow weights.
Closesforem/forem#18082
```shell
$ diff config/feed-variants/20220617-variant-a.json \
config/feed-variants/20220712-variant.json
```
Results in:
```shell
3c3
< "description": "Blend of 20220603-variant-b and 20220603-variant-a",
---
> "description": "Builds from 20220617-variant-a (see https://github.com/forem/forem/issues/18082)",
50a51,57
> "following_author": {
> "cases": [
> [0, 0.8],
> [1, 1]
> ],
> "fallback": 0.8
> },
70,73c77,80
< [0, 0.5],
< [1, 0.85],
< [2, 0.9],
< [3, 0.95],
---
> [0, 0.3],
> [1, 0.9],
> [2, 0.95],
> [3, 0.98],
```
Prior to this change, we setup our feed variant query to have a cached
randomization seed. For a given user this seed is cached for 15
minutes. The goal of this is to provide mostly consistent sort orders
on the feed articles during that 15 minute window.
With this change, we allow for a feed variant to say ignore the cached
seed and generate a new one for this call.
I have also added explicit settings to each of the feed variants to
reflect our desired intentions for those features.
Relates to
- forem/forem#17833
- forem/forem#17826Closesforem/forem#17940
This commit contains two separate but related changes:
1. A check-list for creating a new experiment.
2. A new experiment along with declaring a winner for the previous experiment.
Below are the diffs of the two new variants versus the incumbent for the
experiment:
```
❯ diff config/feed-variants/20220603-variant-b.json config/feed-variants/20220518-variant.json
3,4c3
< "description": "As 202205518-variant but with modificiation to `order_by` lever.",
< "order_by": "final_order_by_random_weighted_to_score",
---
> "order_by": "relevancy_score_and_publication_date",
```
```
❯ diff config/feed-variants/20220603-variant-a.json config/feed-variants/20220518-variant.json
3d2
< "description": "As 202205518-variant but with modificiation to `matching_positive_tags_intersection_count`.",
69c68
< [0, 0.5],
---
> [0, 0.7],
```
Closesforem/forem#17822
* Adding new relevancy lever for privileged reactions
This PR includes four changes:
1. Renaming the variant to remove Jennie's name
2. Starting a new experiment
3. Adding a new relevancy lever
4. Adding a new variant that uses the relevancy lever
1 and 2 is somewhat straight-forward.
For 3, we're looking at having a total of 5 "slots" for privileged user
reactions. Hence the four boundary values.
For 4, we're configuring the granular levers with the following:
- `[-∞..-5)` should have a 0.05
- `[-5..0)` should have a 0.5
- `[0..5)` should have a 0.9
- `[5..10)` should have a 0.98
- `[10..∞)` should have a 1.0
The 20220509-variant.json is a copy of 20220422-variant.json but
replaces the `privileged_user_reaction` lever with the
`privileged_user_reaction_granular` lever.
Below is the diff to highlight the similarities and differences between
the two variants.
```shell
❯ diff config/feed-variants/20220509-variant.json config/feed-variants/20220422-variant.json
90c90
< "privileged_user_reaction_granular": {
---
> "privileged_user_reaction": {
92,96c92,93
< [-2, 0.05],
< [-1, 0.5],
< [0, 0.9],
< [1, 0.98],
< [2, 1]
---
> [-1, 0.2],
> [1, 1]
98,102c95,97
< "fallback": 0.9,
< "very_negative_reaction_threshold": -5,
< "negative_reaction_threshold": 0,
< "positive_reaction_threshold": 5,
< "very_positive_reaction_threshold": 10
---
> "fallback": 0.95,
> "negative_reaction_threshold": -10,
> "positive_reaction_threshold": 10
```
Closesforem/forem#17584
* Update app/models/articles/feeds.rb
Co-authored-by: Josh Puetz <josh@dev.to>
* Adjusting testing logic to reflect latest experiment
* Adjusting negative threshold
Co-authored-by: Josh Puetz <josh@dev.to>
Prior to this commit, the SQL fragments included variables that were set
configured at a global level.
With this commit, we're now saying that each lever "knows" what variable
it needs; and providing the means at lever declaration time to "say"
what those variable names are. (e.g. `Articles::Feeds::LEVER_CATALOG`).
Then as part of the variant configuration (in the
`./config/feed-variants/*.json` files) we now include the expected value
of those parameters; which by convention (and coercion) are integers.
This relates to forem/forem#17584 because we want to move from a
privileged user reaction that has two values (`negative` and `positive`)
into four values (`very_negative`, `negative`, `positive`, and
`very_positive`). To do that, we'll create a new lever; but that's for
another pull request.
* Allowing VariantQuery for Feed Generation
Apologies for the breadth of this pull request, I had considered many
small commits, but felt that would've been more effort for the value
provided.
This commit includes the following:
- Documentation updates to the feed variant (though not the final pass)
- Renaming and adding RelevancyLevers that help differentiate
- Adding RelevancyLever#range to provide documentation
- Reducing redundent controller logic by making a
`Articles::Feeds.feed_for` method.
- Adding some configuration validation for RelevancyLevers
- Adding constants for better clarification
- Testing unhappy paths for feed configuration
- Adjusting the module namespace of some objects
- Exposing top-level configurations for variants (along with their
defaults)
- Creating the VariantyQuery that at present inherits from the
`Articles::Feeds::WeightedQueryStrategy`
As implemented, we can deploy this code to production without using the
new VariantQuery. Once we toggle on the
`:feed_uses_variant_query_feature` FeatureFlag, it will switch to using
the VariantQuery. The VariantQuery's two variants and the
internal configuration of `Articles::Feeds::WeightedQueryStrategy`
produce the same query.
The goal of this factor is to allow for a quick on and off toggle of the
feed query; to ensure that what we introduce remains performant.
- Closesforem/forem#17272
- Closesforem/forem#17276
- Closesforem/forem#17216
In addition, I will be recording a code-walkthrough and linking that
recording to the pull request.
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Mac Siri <krairit.siri@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Mac Siri <krairit.siri@gmail.com>
**tl;dr** This PR is looking to provide a means to programmatically
assemble, from system configurations, what is currently the
[Articles::Feeds::WeightedQueryStrategy::SCORING_METHOD_CONFIGURATIONS][1].
Once we merge this PR, instead of having that constant, we'll initialize
the Articles::Feeds::WeightedQueryStrategy with the variant
configuration that we've assembled.
**Introduction**
This pull request has quite a bit going on, but as of now the production
code does not use any of it.
*Note: None of this code is bleeding into production code paths.*
Put your Ruby hat on and let's go for a ride. And apologizes for not
making this a smaller pull request. As I built this, I made many small
commits, but this became the smallest commit that provided the most
context without integrating into production code.
Before we get started, you may want to familiarize yourself with where
we're going. The `./app/models/articles/feeds/README.md` provides
further guidance; but fair warning reader, I have not reconciled the
README's language with what emerged as I wrote this pull request.
Those of you who are part of Forem Core team, you can read the
[Refinements to Our Present Feed Configuration][2]
to provide some insight into what's happening.
**Why not reconcile?** *Because I want to have all of the language and
thoughts available for you to help consider how best to name and model
this.*
**On to the Review**
The purpose of this pull request is to provide a mechanism for
engineering to provide a series of variant query levers. And to allow
us to easily configure those available query levers into a variant
query.
*Why the mix of Ruby configuration and JSON?*
The Ruby levers are meant to indicate that this is code we don't want to
expose in text based configuration because it might create SQL inject
points. (More on that when we integrate the code of this PR into the
production implementation)
The JSON levers are meant to indicate that "anyone" can pick the
appropriate/available levers and configure how they are set. In other
words, these values do not create SQL injection issues.
**What I Need from You**
I am putting this forward as a draft so you can read this code ahead of
time. I'm then going to schedule a synchronous code review where we
record our collective walk through of the implementation.
Closes:
- forem/forem#17268
- forem/forem#17269
- forem/forem#17270
- forem/forem#17271
- forem/forem#17273
Relates to:
- forem/forem#17308
- forem/forem#17245
[1]:6818ef3ed0/app/services/articles/feeds/weighted_query_strategy.rb (L84-L231)
[2]:https://forem.team/jeremy/refinements-to-our-present-feed-configuration-1p0c
