Add `avgResolutionDays` to issueStat query by Goder-0 · Pull Request #239 · aicers/github-dashboard-server

Goder-0 · 2025-09-09T05:51:36Z

Close #198

codecov · 2025-09-09T05:54:10Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 36.92%. Comparing base (a4d6075) to head (617e6a6).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #239      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   35.51%   36.92%   +1.41%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines        1025     1048      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits          364      387      +23     
  Misses        661      661

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

danbi2990 · 2025-09-11T04:42:54Z

+- Added `avgResolutionDays` field to the `issueStat` GraphQL query. This field
+  calculates the average resolution time in days for issues marked as 'resolved'.


Could you move this entry to the end of the "Added" section? I think it reads more naturally in order of addition.

danbi2990 · 2025-09-11T04:44:55Z

+            .sum();
+
+        let avg_resolution_days = if resolved_issue_count > 0 {
+            Some(total_resolution_days / f64::from(resolved_issue_count))


How about synchronizing the sources of sum and count? If an error occurs during summation, the average may be inaccurate.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve updated it.

danbi2990 · 2025-09-11T08:12:45Z

+        let avg_resolution_days = if !resolution_days.is_empty() {
+            Some(resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>() / resolution_days.len() as f64)


There are two Clippy warnings:

casting usize to f64 causes a loss of precision on targets with 64-bit wide pointers (usize is 64 bits wide, but f64's mantissa is only 52 bits wide)
for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#cast_precision_loss
-W clippy::cast-precision-loss implied by -W clippy::pedantic
to override -W clippy::pedantic add #[allow(clippy::cast_precision_loss)]

unnecessary boolean not operation
for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#if_not_else
-W clippy::if-not-else implied by -W clippy::pedantic
to override -W clippy::pedantic add #[allow(clippy::if_not_else)]

Could you fix these warnings?

Sorry — fixed right after the CI failure.

danbi2990 · 2025-09-11T08:21:16Z

+            let count: i32 = resolution_days
+                .len()
+                .try_into()
+                .expect("The number of resolution days will not exceed i32::MAX");
+            Some(resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>() / f64::from(count))


Could you follow the convention in pull_request_stat.rs? Converting usize => i32 => f64 seems inefficient.

I fixed it using a cast. Do you have any better suggestions?

danbi2990 · 2025-09-11T08:30:33Z

+                    .total(SpanTotal::from(Unit::Day).days_are_24_hours())
+                    .ok()?;
+
+                Some(resolution_days - pending_days)


If someone mistakenly sets a large value for pending_days, it could skew the average.
How about guarding against negative values with Some(f64::max(resolution_days - pending_days, 0.0))?

I’ve made the changes and also added the corresponding test cases

danbi2990 · 2025-09-15T01:36:22Z

+            let count: f64 = cast(resolution_days.len()).unwrap_or(0.0);
+
+            if count == 0.0 {
+                None
+            } else {
+                Some(resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>() / count)
+            }


Suggested change

let count: f64 = cast(resolution_days.len()).unwrap_or(0.0);

if count == 0.0 {

None

} else {

Some(resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>() / count)

}

Some(

resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>()

/ resolution_days

.len()

.to_f64()

.context("Failed to convert usize to f64")?,

)

I meant using to_f64().context(...), which seems simpler.

danbi2990 · 2025-09-15T01:42:04Z

+  - Added `avgResolutionDays` field to the `issueStat` GraphQL query. This field
+  calculates the average resolution time in days for issues marked as 'resolved'.


Could you move this under the issueStat entry? (line 23)

sophie-cluml · 2025-09-15T08:01:48Z

+pub(crate) const TODO_LIST_PROJECT_TITLE: &str = "to-do list";
+pub(crate) const TODO_LIST_STATUS_DONE: &str = "Done";


이거 혹시 api.rs 로 옮기는게 나을지 봐주실 수 있을까요?

옮기는게 좋을 것 같습니다. 옮기도록 하겠습니다.

sophie-cluml · 2025-09-15T08:03:05Z

+        } else {
+            Some(
+                resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>()
+                    / resolution_days


resolution_days 가 0일 수도 있을까요?

전체 코드는 다음과 같습니다. vector가 비어있을 경우, None으로 처리되어 0인 경우는 예외처리됩니다.

let avg_resolution_days = if resolution_days.is_empty() { None } else { Some( resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>() / resolution_days .len() .to_f64() .context("Failed to convert usize to f64")?, ) };

Close #198

Goder-0 linked an issue Sep 9, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

통계 구현: 인원, 기간, 저장소별 할당 & resolved 이슈의 평균 처리 기간 #198

Closed

danbi2990 self-requested a review September 9, 2025 06:07

danbi2990 reviewed Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Goder-0 force-pushed the kai/avg-resolution-days branch 2 times, most recently from 1970dbb to ea5f856 Compare September 11, 2025 08:15

danbi2990 reviewed Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Goder-0 force-pushed the kai/avg-resolution-days branch 2 times, most recently from 509b987 to 711bb08 Compare September 15, 2025 01:39

danbi2990 reviewed Sep 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Goder-0 force-pushed the kai/avg-resolution-days branch from 711bb08 to 606b326 Compare September 15, 2025 02:28

danbi2990 approved these changes Sep 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

danbi2990 requested a review from sophie-cluml September 15, 2025 04:23

sophie-cluml reviewed Sep 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add avgResolutionDays to issueStat query

617e6a6

Close #198

Goder-0 force-pushed the kai/avg-resolution-days branch from 606b326 to 617e6a6 Compare September 15, 2025 08:42

sophie-cluml approved these changes Sep 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

danbi2990 merged commit a36d456 into main Sep 16, 2025
12 checks passed

danbi2990 deleted the kai/avg-resolution-days branch September 16, 2025 00:24

		- Added `avgResolutionDays` field to the `issueStat` GraphQL query. This field
		calculates the average resolution time in days for issues marked as 'resolved'.

		let avg_resolution_days = if !resolution_days.is_empty() {
		Some(resolution_days.iter().sum::<f64>() / resolution_days.len() as f64)

		pub(crate) const TODO_LIST_PROJECT_TITLE: &str = "to-do list";
		pub(crate) const TODO_LIST_STATUS_DONE: &str = "Done";

Uh oh!

Conversation

Goder-0 commented Sep 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Goder-0 Sep 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Goder-0 commented Sep 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Goder-0 Sep 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading