This change introduces several things things:
1. Fixes the performance of the `/admin/abtests` page; instead of
rendering all of the experiment results, just render the overview.
2. Adjust the show page for an experiment to show the summary of
results.
3. Favor the existing "started_at" and "ended_at" attributes of
FieldTest (see https://github.com/ankane/field_test#config)
4. Update the field test experiments to include the `started_at` and
`ended_at` attributes.
5. Skip processing all non-active experiments in our conversion handler.
Why are there no tests? This is a page that is Admin only and is only
visible for reporting purposes. So, it's not quite worth writing tests
as you'd need lots of data. So we'll assume the logic from the upstream
[field_test gem][1] is adequate.
Closesforem/forem#17869
[1]:https://github.com/ankane/field_test
With comments, publishing articles, and reactions we had symmetry on two
goals:
- Create a _subject_ (e.g. Comment, Published Article, Reaction)
- Create four _subjects_ within a week.
For page views we only had "Create four _subjects_ within a week." This
PR addes the "Create a _subject_".
To do this required adjusting some tests as they were too specific in
nature (looking at an expected count).
In addition, in consultation with Jennie, I've updated the experiment
order to better reflect some hierarchical importance.
**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_single_create_pageview)`
returns `true` unless we explicitly disable this flag.
Related to forem/forem#17673
Related to forem/forem#17669Closesforem/forem#17691
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
* 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>
* 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
* Moving Experiments into AbExperiment namespace
This commit entails two major concepts:
1. Extracting logic out of a worker.
2. Cleaning the conditions in which we convert experiments.
In addition, I revisited some spec names to tidy them up for
clarification and structure.
**Extracting Logic...**
For workers, my preference is that they be a simple router to another
object. A non-worker object, with it's initialize method, can both
better manage instance variables. Further, workers are somewhat "flat"
in hierarchy,
In this case, having the AbExperiment be knowledgeable both in setting
the experiment and handling conversions makes (to me) organizational
sense. For example, the AbExperiment is constructed as a wrapper to the
FieldTest gem. But the RecordFieldTestEventWorker had knowledge of
FieldTest.
With this refactor, it does not have that knowledge. This also provided
an opportunity to replace magic strings with constants.
**Cleaning the conditions...**
This relates directly to and closesforem/forem#17530. I was looking at
the experiments after 2 days, and realized that there shouldn't be
results for
`user_views_pages_on_at_least_nine_different_days_within_two_weeks`;
after all the experiment started 2 days ago, how can we have results
that look at 2 weeks.
By adding the "max" function calls, we ensure a clear boundary of
"before the experiment began" versus "while the experiment is running".
Closesforem/forem#17530
* Update spec/models/ab_experiment_spec.rb
Co-authored-by: Mac Siri <krairit.siri@gmail.com>
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Julianna Tetreault <32834804+juliannatetreault@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mac Siri <krairit.siri@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Julianna Tetreault <32834804+juliannatetreault@users.noreply.github.com>
