Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor: break fraudAssessment into evaluations #442
refactor: break fraudAssessment into evaluations #442
Changes from 13 commits
7b7c90c
9e59ed6
07be2cc
1392633
11d896e
8731b08
01dc39f
c08c10a
aa08724
f8a0505
16938d8
52390bd
1aba267
a6a84bc
7a5db2d
a88ffba
85c882d
c9d91eb
3680486
e141918
eee1d77
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since initial value is set to
null
by default we might should set property type to be optional, maybe something like:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed 👍
This pull request is not making this any worse, so let's leave such improvement out of the scope, please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
TODO: check if we need to add a test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done in c08c10a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To double check: We will now be calling measurements that will be rewarded "accepted measurements", right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, this is a good call! 🤔
I want to call measurements that will be rewarded "measurementsToReward"; that's what I use inside the main evaluation loop.
Everywhere else, we need to decide whether we are interested in measurements that passed tasking evaluation but may be in the minority, or whether we are interested in measurements that will be rewarded (passed the tasking evalution and are in majority).
In that light, maybe it would be better to avoid using the term "accepted measurements" altogether. Or qualify it as "measurements accepted by tasking"?
I don't have a good answer 😞