This commit adds three new feed experiment goals:
* user publishes four posts within a week
* user reacts with a "heart", "unicorn", or "reading list" to an article
* user reacts with a "heart", "unicorn", or "reading list" to an article
four times in a week
In addition it adds it to the existing experiment. Adding it to the
existing experiment is acceptable because:
1. We can ignore the results
2. The experiments are structured such that these new goals could be met
with prior data.
3. Both variants are playing by the same rules, so the results relative
to each other are valid.
**There is a nuanced assumption in how we handle reactions:**
This implementation does not count by unique article reactions. However,
most folks will ❤️ , 🦄 , and 🔖 in one swoop; thus
those 3 reactions are all grouped into happening on one day.
Further, it's a reflection of the person taking an action after reading
a post, not how much action on that particular post.
**Rollback considerations:**
This also includes a feature flag that we can explicitly disable if we
overload the application with workers handling reaction goals. Using
`FeatureFlag.accessible?(:field_test_event_for_reactions)` returns
`true` unless we explicitly disable this flag.
Closesforem/forem#17669
Prior to this commit, if the Forem limitted article creation only to
admins, when a new user would sign-up their call to action was to
"Create a Post". If that new user clicked on the button, they would get
an action unauthorized error.
With this commit, the call to action for Creating a Post is hidden to
that user.
The `users/onboardings/_task_card.html.erb` is rendered as part of the
home page. The home page, due to our [EdgeCacheSafetyCheck][1], does not
allow us to access attributes of the current user (e.g. are they an
admin); which means we can't add a `if policy(Article).create` to the
HTML erb. We must instead use the [`application_policy_content_tag`][2]
as well as the [AsyncInfo][3] to help inform the
[applyApplicationPolicyToggles.js pack][4] of the conditional rendering.
Closesforem/forem#17638
Related to forem/forem-internal-eng#347
[1]:8160089f3d/app/controllers/concerns/edge_cache_safety_check.rb
[2]:8160089f3d/app/helpers/application_helper.rb (L390)
[3]:8160089f3d/app/models/async_info.rb (L52-L61)
[4]:8160089f3d/app/javascript/packs/applyApplicationPolicyToggles.js
The [`ArticlePolicy#moderate?`][1] method answers the questions around article
moderation.
At present this change does not introduce any significant changes (aside
from the JS logic loop). The next "step" is to adjust the
`ArticlePolicy#moderate?` method to test if the user has a moderator
role.
Further, we'd need to see what is available on the action panel.
Related to forem/forem#17606
[1]:5ac3216a5a/app/policies/article_policy.rb (L160-L174)
Prior to this commit, if we didn't have an instance of `Article` we
likely had the class `Article`; we would then run a potentially VERY
expensive query (`SELECT user_id FROM articles;`) to provide an
answer; namely if all of the articles are written by the same user then
yes this user is the author.
With this commit, when you're authorizing the `Article` class, let's
just say "Nope, this user isn't the author".
Closesforem/forem#17604
Related to forem/forem#17612
Related to forem/forem#17634
Looking at the following error, I *think* this might address the
observed issue.
```shell
✖ jest --findRelatedTests:
No tests found, exiting with code 1
Run with `--passWithNoTests` to exit with code 0
Make sure Jest's configuration does not exclude this directory.
To set up Jest, make sure a package.json file exists.
Jest Documentation: https://jestjs.io/docs/configuration
```
There are 2 things going on in this pull request:
1. Reducing duplication of knowledge, by favoring constants found in
Reaction.
2. Creating and enforcing the policies regarding the different
categories of reactions.
I chose to conflate these two as I was working on developing the
ReactionPolicy's finder method.
Closesforem/forem-internal-eng#454
Related to forem/forem#17628
* Fixing variant query specs
As I was working on adding a new variant, I discovered that not all of
our variants were being tested. This had to do with a faulty assumption
regarding the scoping of the `variant` local variable.
The change ensures that we declare a subject once for each defined
variant within their own `describe` block. Without that `describe`
block, you end up repurposing the same subject.
I found this because I made a deliberate error in the upcoming variant
and checked the tests. They passed.
Related to forem/forem#17584
* Update spec/services/articles/feeds/variant_query_spec.rb
Co-authored-by: Julianna Tetreault <32834804+juliannatetreault@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update spec/services/articles/feeds/variant_query_spec.rb
Co-authored-by: Julianna Tetreault <32834804+juliannatetreault@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Julianna Tetreault <32834804+juliannatetreault@users.noreply.github.com>
* 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>
* test(cover-image): uses correct queries for ui unit tests
* test(form): replaces queries to getByRole and adds expect where necessary
* feat(help): adds expect assert and uses within to test inside specific block
* feat(image-uploader): uses correct queries to validate behaviour
* test: corrects queries and adds expect assertions to some unit tests
* Adds an empty state to the GDPR delete requests table
* Refactors and fixes gdprDeleteRequests.spec.js
* Updates aria-describedby for the GDPR delete requests table
* Adding a field test option for post publishing goals
We have page view and comment view "goals" but have not looked at
publication "goals". We're using these "goals" to help us refine the
feed towards sustainable engagement and community health.
The conjecture on publication goals is that the content on the feed
itself can nudge folks in their decision to publish posts.
Closesforem/forem#17585
* Fixing broken test
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.
* Bump katex from 0.8.0 to 0.9.0
Bumps [katex](https://github.com/glebm/katex-ruby) from 0.8.0 to 0.9.0.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/glebm/katex-ruby/releases)
- [Changelog](https://github.com/glebm/katex-ruby/blob/main/CHANGES.md)
- [Commits](https://github.com/glebm/katex-ruby/compare/v0.8.0...v0.9.0)
---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: katex
dependency-type: direct:production
update-type: version-update:semver-minor
...
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
* Update test to "definitely invalid" syntax
Previously, \\c was invalid. However, it is now parseable for whatever reason.
This adds an unterminated { to raise a syntax error.
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andy Z <17884966+Zhao-Andy@users.noreply.github.com>
