4 ms·
I will point out that in the first two issues, the repo owners also edited the initial report with something along the lines of "removed ad". I disagree that t
by vitus 5y ago
I will point out that in the first two issues, the repo owners also edited the initial report with something along the lines of "removed ad".
I disagree that the first isn't a complaint -- the owner stated that this behavior isn't appreciated but decided to let it slide because the issue was valid.
In the third issue, the owner also explicitly stated: "I don't think bots posting unsolicited static analysis results are a good idea." I have no opinions on whether the code should be clearer, but that doesn't change the validity of the reaction.
- dekhn 5y agoI do think the question of "how should bots that do static analysis work" is an important one, but in the meantime, people are gonna bot and repo managers are gonna complain.
- klyrs 5y agoThe bot-account's (apparently human-written) reply of "you're very welcome" to the complaint in the third issue is downright dismissive of the problem and kinda passive aggressive. While it seems that the bot did good work overall, the human(s) handling edge cases need work.
- mhils 5y agoWe've blocked the bot after their script malfunctioned and they opened a second issue with exactly the same text (https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/issues/5286 https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/issues/5286).
- rikatee 5y agoklyrs was right about the reply from me (a dev behdind Code Review Doctor) being dismissive in the issue. I apologise for that. FWIW my reaction was classic "expectations not meeting reality": weeks of work to do (what I thought) was a mutually beneficial helpful thing. I was naively not expecting non-positive responses and was ill prepared when you raised valid concerns I had not considered. Again, I am working on that and sorry I was passive aggressive to you.