Core Contributor Sprint Retro - May 27th - June 10th

Here is the retrospective for the most recent Core Contributor (CC) sprint:

Calls/offers for help

This is what the core team needs help on now. Note that anyone can help – you don’t need to be a Core Contributor (yet!) for that:

Is there anything where you could use help from others? Or that you would like to collaborate on?

When I suggest a change to a repo (Open a PR). Which I don’t have commit history with, the tests won’t run, unless someone trigger them. I found that to be really unproductive for me… Specially when I can’t replicate the tests locally i.e. codecov. Is there anything to be done to enhance this experience? Ghassan Maslamani
I would like all Core Contributors to please fill in the sprint retro survey, at least the hours completed section. I would like to collaborate/learn more about extending TestX with Kyle McCormick (the creator of TestX) and anyone who wants to learn more about TestX in preparation for Olive. Dean Jay Mathew
Need comments about the technical committee (TOC) election process: TOC Community Members Elections - Brainstorm thread. Carry-over items from previous sprints – help needed: Need input from providers deploying Tutor at scale – we are looking for areas of collaboration on this, to share maintenance & dev costs: Tech talk/demo: Deploying multiple Open edX instances onto a Kubernetes Cluster with Tutor - #53 by antoviaque. Need reviewers for contributions in several PRs: 2U - External Contributions · GitHub. Tutor e-commerce plugins needs to be upgraded: Nutmeg by sambapete · Pull Request #28 · overhangio/tutor-ecommerce · GitHub Xavier Antoviaque
K8s should have a dedicated space of collaboration. There are many things that are not working, or that need a special consideration to implement. Andrés González
Can someone invite me to the BTR meetings ( I always forget the hour and miss the start of the meeting Maria Grimaldi
I’d like to set up readthedocs to maintain versions of the edx-platform technical reference Peter Pinch
I’m looking for some documentation reviewers, if anyone is interested in reviewing docs as we establish the new docs standards, let me know. If you’re a repo maintainer and want to improve the docs story for your repo also let me know, I’m looking for a small/medium repo to use for initial experimentation. Feanil Patel

What went well?

What went well these last two weeks / sprint?

I did most of what I planned to do Ghassan Maslamani
Asynchronous Nutmeg testing went well, very thankful to those who have put their hand up for these tasks. Marketing group is doing some good work. Dean Jay Mathew
Notice an uptick in forums posts from all sections of the community Nutmeg release very smooth, great work all around Sarina Canelake
The transition away from Friday was on time, and seem to be working well! (fingers crossed :slight_smile: ) Xavier Antoviaque
Advanced in testing Maple and Nutmeg in K8s Andrés González
Reviewed some PRs that had some time in my worklog Maria Grimaldi
The BTR working group completed Nutmeg testing in time. The BTR working group released Nutmeg on time. Pierre Mailhot
Community testing continues to be great. Nutmeg release went pretty smoothly Peter Pinch
I was able to be more active on the forum, and show the community what I’ve been working on. Ali Hugo
I found out that some people outside of edunext are already creating filters and merging them to master. Ideally this should go in the external library, but seeing filters get traction is great. Felipe Montoya
edx-webhooks had a bunch of major library upgrades that are now complete. Feanil Patel
The Open edX Meetup was a huge success and all the work and effort invested into preparing this event was worth it. Promoting the review platform of e-learning industry among our clients was good. We invested some time in order to prepare a good e-mail campaign in which we ask our clients to submit their review of the Open edX platform. fingerscrossed that all of our clients will submit a review. Nicole Kessler
Ongoing process, no blocker at the moment (only some colleagues on holiday). I couldn’t join the MFE working group on the 9th. due to the conflict with the Open Edx event. Steffania Trabucchi
Reviews… Piotr Surowiec

Hours contributed

The total reported hours contributed for the last sprint: 238.85

The totals of the hours reported in the last ten (10) sprints:

User Hours Contributed
Feanil Patel 176
Andrés González 147
Sarina Canelake 146
Piotr Surowiec 127
Xavier Antoviaque 99.15
Kyle McCormick 90
Gabriel D’Amours 84
Ali Hugo 80.57
Ghassan Maslamani 80
Peter Pinch 75
Zia Fazal 74
Maria Grimaldi 70
Felipe Montoya 67
Braden MacDonald 44
Dean Jay Mathew 42
Adolfo Brandes 40
David Ormsbee 40
Juan Camilo Montoya 38
Jillian Vogel 35
Igor Degtiarov 32
Pierre Mailhot 32
Matjaz Gregoric 29
Giovanni Cimolin 28
Kshitij Sobti 23
Sofiane Bebert 20
Jhony Avella 16
Usman Khalid 13
Nizar Mahmoud 10
Steffania Trabucchi 10
Omar Al-Ithawi 7.5
Esteban Etcheverry 7
Nicole Kessler 7
JayRam Nai 4
Ilaria Botti 1.5
Chintan Joshi 1
Stefania Trabucchi 0

Grand Total 1795.72


Nutmeg preparations remain one of the central points mentioned. All the raw details and extra information can be found here:

1 Like

Thanks @Dean! Here is a recap of the answers discussed during the contributor meetup today:

@sarina described that this is a security topic - we have a whitelist of accounts who are allowed to run the tests directly, to avoid allowing unintended executions of arbitrary code by the tests. Only allowing people we trust to run them removes attack vectors.

We wondered if it would be possible to more easily add people like @ghassan to such a list, but nobody in the meeting was sure of where or who controls this aspect of the tests. There seemed to be a general agreement that this would be a good thing, but someone would need to explore how this could be done and suggest an approach. @ghassan will post about it on the forums.

+1! Try the new version of the checkin tool if you haven’t already :slight_smile:

@kmccormick This is for you from @Dean ^ Kudos for the offer to help!

We quickly discussed collaborating on Kubernetes with @Felipe during the meeting, and we agreed that we’ll need to find an approach that can be managed at the community / Open edX project level, rather than a specific organisation. @Felipe has offered to develop a new approach on the forum thread. I remarked that we had already multiple implementations in the community, so it would be great if the solution was not to have to redevelop yet another reimplementation. Since we started discussing collaborating only after code had been written, we all got attached to a specific approach. It might be useful to pick different compatible parts from different contributors, to all have some ownership in the shared project, but keep only one approach that we all use and co-own together at the community level? CC @braden

@mgmdi The BTR meeting can be found in the shared working groups calendar:

@pdpinch is still blocked on this – but the next update from @feanil (cf below) proved useful, reminding us that @feanil you are probably a good person to help @pdpinch with this ^


I’d like to be clear here, the “allowlist” is those who have write access to the repo, as well as those who have previously been approved by someone with write access. I don’t think this is something we’ve implemented (maybe it’s a configured GH Actions behavior?) so I don’t think there will be a solution as easy as “add this user to the allowlist”.