Ranking System v2 #1186

francois-rozet · 2021-07-13T15:15:23Z

As #883, #455 and #1029, I've noticed that the function calculateRank doesn't work as expected.

The first problem is the use of a normal distribution instead of an exponential distribution, as pointed out by #960 . The second is that each metric has the same weight in the score, while some are clearly better indicators (e.g. stars). I've corrected both problems in this PR.

If you want to try it out before merging, I've hosted this version on Vercel.

Importantly, in #960, being extremely good in a single metric (e.g. 100k commits) while being terrible elsewhere still gets an "S+" rank. In my implementation, in order to get "S+", you need to be outstanding everywhere. However, you can still get "A+" or "S" if a single metric is poor (e.g. contributions or issues) but you have a lot of stars and followers.

vercel · 2021-07-13T15:15:28Z

@francois-rozet is attempting to deploy a commit to the github readme stats Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

anuraghazra · 2021-07-18T12:37:46Z

So in #960 seems like linustorvals is getting S+ rank which is good, since atleast we know a baseline that there are people who can get S+ but in this PR your changes seems to stretch the stats maybe a little bit too far?

francois-rozet · 2021-07-18T13:41:40Z

Hi @anuraghazra 👋 I've edited the weights such that Linus Torvalds is now S+.

By the way S+ is top 2.5%, S 10%, A+ 25%, A 50% and B+ 75% and B 100%.

RodrigoDornelles · 2021-08-16T12:54:27Z

o in #960 seems like linustorvals is getting S+ rank which is good, since atleast we know a baseline that there are people who can get S+ but in this PR your changes seems to stretch the stats maybe a little bit too far?

thought it was great, in the current algorithm most are in the A+, even accounts with less than 5 commits and no stars get this rank, due to the huge amount of registered guests. and accounts with numerous commits, repositories and pull requests also remain with the same rank as this one.

anuraghazra · 2021-09-07T14:40:17Z

By the way S+ is top 2.5%, S 10%, A+ 25%, A 50% and B+ 75% and B 100%.

This ratio seems well balanced.

francois-rozet · 2021-09-14T15:31:13Z

@anuraghazra Any updates on your plans ?

akhildevelops · 2021-09-14T19:25:47Z

This is one of the good ways of modeling the data to exponential distribution. I frequently work with datasets and most of them don't fit into normal distribution (I think the current ranking depends on fitting the data to a normal distribution).

As we currently have no idea on the whole data i.e, meta-data for all the github users with respect to commits, prs, stargazers etc..,. It would be difficult to obtain right parameter values and weights for the model to explain the distribution,

For fun I've tried to see what's the minimum count(MC) required for only one type of parameter (considering others to be zero count) to achieve a given rank.

Rank	threshold	MC - Commits	MC - Prs	MC-Followers	MC-Stars
S+	2.5%	None	None	None	None
S+	10%	None	None	None	None
A+	25%	None	None	None	None
A	50%	None	None	None	300
B+	75%	None	None	None	83
B	100%	None	None	None	None

Interestingly the weights are so strict that one can achieve only upto Rank A who has only a minimum of 300 stargazers.

I'll try to share more stats based on combinations of parameters.

francois-rozet · 2021-09-14T23:27:23Z

Hello @Enforcer007, I'm not sure to understand what you want to say.

Do you think it is bad that one cannot get S+ (or even A+ in fact) by maximizing a single metric ?

akhildevelops · 2021-09-15T07:16:48Z

Hi @francois-rozet,

The weights you used is a good start, as it restricts users to go higher in ranks who only focus on one kind type of parameter.

anuraghazra · 2021-09-19T13:36:40Z

Just testing out few numbers with the ranking system

https://codesandbox.io/s/calculaterank-9nj6d?file=/src/index.js

One scenario which I'm seeing is that if someone is overall decent on all stats but has 0 stars gained they will always get B+ rank which isn't ideal.

See codesandbox for more info.

francois-rozet · 2021-09-19T15:35:28Z

Hello @anuraghazra,

You seem to have a really warped view of what is a "decent" number of stars. Most users don't have any stars, let alone more than 100. "just a few thousand stars" is already incredibly outstanding. For instance, here you see that only 5000 users have more than 2750 stars and there are over 40 millions active users on GitHub.

Same for the number of commits, followers, PRs, etc. (2500 commits or 750 followers is not average at all). The values I have chosen were calculated (by hand) as the averages over the stargazers of one of my repos (francois-rozet/piqa). The stargazers of this repository (there are ~30k) would be much more representative. Since you are familiar with GitHub's API it shouldn't be too hard for you to gather the metrics of these users and then compute the averages.

anuraghazra · 2021-09-19T16:43:11Z

You seem to have a really warped view of what is a "decent" number of stars. Most users don't have any stars, let alone more than 100

Exactly, thats why I said if someone is overall decent on all stats but has 0 stars gained they will always get B+ rank which is really unfair.

I'm talking about the first case


// Average user but with 0 stars will always get B+
console.log(
  calculateRank({
    totalCommits: 1500,
    followers: 500,
    prs: 150,
    issues: 65,
    stargazers: 0
  })
);

francois-rozet · 2021-09-19T16:50:20Z

You can reduce the weight of stars if you want. STARS_WEIGHT = 0.5 seems balanced.

francois-rozet · 2021-10-15T11:53:43Z

Any updates @anuraghazra ?

dreamyguy · 2021-10-19T20:24:41Z

Could this be published and enabled with an extra URL parameter - or with a 'v2' as part of the URL? This would not cause breaking changes for anyone, and we could carry on from there. 🚀 🌔

tests/calculateRank.test.js

rickstaa · 2021-11-09T10:00:01Z

@francois-rozet I reviewed your pull request and found one small bug in the tests. When that is fixed, I think it should be fine to be merged into the master branch.

rickstaa · 2023-05-22T06:37:13Z

The new system is good, but I'd like to express my personal opinion. I believe that a grading system with only S, A, B tiers is not very good, because people might unconsciously believe that there exist tiers like C, D, F. I've previously stated that a "grading system that satisfies everyone" could ultimately lose its reference value, and the meaning represented by the rank "B" could eventually become the new F.

I trust that people's spirits are not so fragile that they cannot face their own grades, and even lower grades can serve as motivation for personal growth. We don't have to view this system as competitive ranking, instead, we can try to understand this system as a measure of a developer's "growth from the initial state". If we really don't want the grade F to appear, we could use a format like Lv1, Lv2, Lv3... and so forth.

@ZjzMisaka thank you so much for giving your two cents 🙏🏻. I agree that the rank names can be improved. As stated in #1186 (comment) however we will tackle this in a subsequent pull request. Possible improvements are found and discussed in #2265 👍🏻. Maybe you can add your suggestion there?

@everybody Feel free to add your two cents. I will merge this PR in:

qwerty541

It is very surprising for me that Linus Torvalds, having in his profile a project with an abnormally large number of stars of 150,000+, receives only an A+ grade from the new ranking system. As far as I understand, the new ranking system mainly takes into account the number of open pull requests and issues. Considering that the purpose of this project is to motivate developers and newcomers to contribute more actively in open source projects, then this change looks logical and correct. But I still think that an abnormally large number of stars, commits or followers should also elevate the user to at least the S rank.

ZjzMisaka · 2023-05-25T05:33:04Z

It is very surprising for me that Linus Torvalds, having in his profile a project with an abnormally large number of stars of 150,000+, receives only an A+ grade from the new ranking system. As far as I understand, the new ranking system mainly takes into account the number of open pull requests and issues. Considering that the purpose of this project is to motivate developers and newcomers to contribute more actively in open source projects, then this change looks logical and correct. But I still think that an abnormally large number of stars, commits or followers should also elevate the user to at least the S rank.

I agree with this perspective. It's important to recognize that some users may not be involved in a variety of open-source projects, but they could be focusing on their own open-source projects and making significant contributions there. This type of work should also be encouraged, as it has a positive effect on the open-source community as a whole.

francois-rozet · 2023-05-25T05:53:34Z

The ranking takes all stats into account (and mainly stars and prs). To have S or S+, you need to be great everywhere. This is the whole point of this PR. If we allow to be good in a single stat, then users with 0 stars, 0 issues, 0 PRs, 0 followers, but 100000 commits still get S+, which makes no sense, especially if the goal is to push devs to collaborate. Besides, it is very rare (try to find another) to find cases like Linus Torvalds with huge number of stars but barely any PRs/issues. Implementing an exception mechanism for a handful of users, which would never use this project anyway, is pointless.

rickstaa · 2023-05-25T06:16:55Z

The ranking takes all stats into account (and mainly stars and prs). To have S or S+, you need to be great everywhere. This is the whole reason for this PR. If you allow to be good in a single stat, then users with 0 stars, 0 issues, 0 PRs, 0 followers, but 100000 commits still get S+, which makes no sense, especially if the goal is to push devs to collaborate. Besides, it is very rare to find other cases like Linus Torvalds with huge number of stars but barely any PRs/issues.

I have to agree with @francois-rozet on this one. An excellent developer S+ has to score high in all fields. Although the contributions of Linus Torvald are indispensable for the OS community, and he should therefore have the S+ ranking, we unfortunately cannot deduce this from his GitHub statistics alone 🤔. Furthermore, the big number of commits made by Linus Torvalds that is displayed on the stats card is incorrect. This is caused by a bug in GRS (see #564) 😅. The actual commits made by Linus are in the order of 28k, which is not too far from of @anuraghazra, who scores higher on the other stats.

Although, still would prefer a ranking scheme where I get a S ranking instead of a S+ but I couldn't find weights that don't skew the other developers too much. I therefore still think the solution provided by @francois-rozet is the most balanced one. If you guys can find a combination of weights which gives Linux a S ranking without degrading this balance, feel free to open a subsequent pull request. I will likely merge this pull request tomorrow, since it is an enormous improvement compared to the old behaviour, but will consider any improvements in future PRs 👍🏻.

ZjzMisaka · 2023-05-25T09:37:58Z

#1186 (comment)

Here's an idea, but this idea may not be mature enough and it may be difficult to implement......
perhaps we can assign individual rankings for commits, PRs, issues, stars, and followers, we can even create a five-dimensional graph based on these data points. This way, we can have a more intuitive visualization of a developer's overall skill level without struggling to evaluate them using just a single score.

rickstaa · 2023-05-25T09:46:51Z

#1186 (comment)

Here's an idea, but this idea may not be mature enough and it may be difficult to implement...... perhaps we can assign individual rankings for commits, PRs, issues, stars, and followers, we can even create a five-dimensional graph based on these data points. This way, we can have a more intuitive visualization of a developer's overall skill level without struggling to evaluate them using just a single score.

Although I agree your idea results in a better developer skill display, I think the extra code and development time required for this idea is not worth it 😅. People can rank developers based on how important they find the individual items displayed on the stats card. The rank was added as a motivator for developers.

FleetAdmiralJakob · 2023-05-26T12:14:08Z

@rickstaa

rickstaa · 2023-05-26T13:39:50Z

@rickstaa

Done 🎉!

rickstaa · 2023-05-26T13:40:12Z

@francois-rozet thanks again for implementing this improvement 👍🏻.

sunpm · 2023-05-29T03:25:08Z

The weight of commit is very low

rickstaa · 2023-05-29T06:36:04Z

The weight of commit is very low

@sunpm feel free to create an improvement pull request 👍🏻.

lorezyra · 2023-05-30T02:28:10Z

ref:

Instead of some letter, why not use what most apps do in gamification: show an XP or numerical level rank? Everyone starts from zero. But few can keep pushing the top.

Dgdiniz · 2023-06-02T00:42:40Z

Hi, I think the formula needs some tweeks. I tested here with some values, and for 1000 commits we have:
{ level: 'B+', score: 69.07599578073207 }

For 10000 commits we have:
{ level: 'B+', score: 67.93963214438497 }

And for 100000 commits we have:
{ level: 'B+', score: 67.93963214436843 }

So the values are converging too fast, and after a while makes no difference to increase a particular value.

francois-rozet · 2023-06-02T05:45:19Z

This is expected. People with 1000 commits per year are already in the top 5 percentiles (for that statistic). So more commits will not improve the total rank dramatically. If you want to improve the rank, you will have to work on the other stats.

rickstaa · 2023-06-02T15:11:59Z

Hi, I think the formula needs some tweeks. I tested here with some values, and for 1000 commits we have: { level: 'B+', score: 69.07599578073207 }

For 10000 commits we have: { level: 'B+', score: 67.93963214438497 }

And for 100000 commits we have: { level: 'B+', score: 67.93963214436843 }

So the values are converging too fast, and after a while makes no difference to increase a particular value.

I agree that in the current formula levels out too quickly when people are only good in one statistic. Luckily, @francois-rozet already created a new PR that in my opinion offers a good balance 🙏🏻. @Dgdiniz maybe you can review #2762 (review)? I hosted it on https://github-readme-stats-git-rank-rickstaa.vercel.app:

[![Anurag's GitHub stats](https://github-readme-stats-git-rank-rickstaa.vercel.app/api?username=Dgdiniz)](https://github.com/anuraghazra/github-readme-stats)

Dgdiniz · 2023-06-03T02:03:58Z

Hi @rickstaa, I tested here but the behavior is similar. After a while makes no difference improving a category. I was thinking in a simpler approach. Each category has a weight, so a commit is 2 points and a star is 4 points. So each rank just needs a certain number of points. So each category could reach rank S. The number of points could be calculated using some top contributor as reference. Like 200k points is S+. The points destribution could follow some curve, so from C+ to B- we need few points, but from A+ to S- we need much more points. It's very unlikely to have 50k commits, but some repos have thousands of stars, so I don't know the best way to weight the categories. But today we can have billions of points in a category and still be at rank B. But the idea of forcing points in more than one category is also cool.

rickstaa · 2023-06-03T06:45:15Z

Hi @rickstaa, I tested here but the behavior is similar. After a while makes no difference improving a category. I was thinking in a simpler approach. Each category has a weight, so a commit is 2 points and a star is 4 points. So each rank just needs a certain number of points. So each category could reach rank S. The number of points could be calculated using some top contributor as reference. Like 200k points is S+. The points destribution could follow some curve, so from C+ to B- we need few points, but from A+ to S- we need much more points. It's very unlikely to have 50k commits, but some repos have thousands of stars, so I don't know the best way to weight the categories. But today we can have billions of points in a category and still be at rank B. But the idea of forcing points in more than one category is also cool.

@Dgdiniz thanks for your feedback. Although I like the simplicity of your system, I love that the current system promotes good code practices like working with pull requests and being a well-rounded developer 🤔. As can be seen in #2762 (comment) I think all ranks are douable when people: make use of both pull requests and commits and get stars and followers by creating OS projects that have value to other people.

rickstaa · 2023-06-03T06:52:39Z

@Dgdiniz However, as said before, this is a community-owned OS project, so all feedback is welcome. Therefore, You are welcome to open a feature request with your proposal. If enough people upvote your idea, I will review it. I use #1935 to judge which features or bugs I donate my leisure time to 😄.

#1186 and #2762 were/will be merged because there was a lot of demand for a better ranking system (see #455). @francois-rozet did a fantastic job at improving the old system, since getting a rank higher or lower than an A+ in the old system was tough. I also think that creating a rank system that will make everybody happy is not doable since we don't have the ground truth of what is an average GitHub developer 😅.

* Revise rank calculation * Replace contributions by commits * Lower average stats and S+ threshold * Fix calculateRank.test.js Missing key in dictionary constructor Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * refactor: run prettier * feat: change star weight to 0.75 * Separate PRs and issues * Tweak weights * Add count_private back * fix: enable 'count_private' again * test: fix tests * refactor: improve code formatting * Higher targets --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com>

aaron-muti-420

Con you consider leaving comments

* Revise rank calculation * Replace contributions by commits * Lower average stats and S+ threshold * Fix calculateRank.test.js Missing key in dictionary constructor Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * refactor: run prettier * feat: change star weight to 0.75 * Separate PRs and issues * Tweak weights * Add count_private back * fix: enable 'count_private' again * test: fix tests * refactor: improve code formatting * Higher targets --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com>

* Include all repo w/ access to * parameterize affiliation * Use GraphQL variable syntax * Custom ownerAffiliations for general stats * Add default affiliation * Apply patches anuraghazra#1122 (comment) * build(deps): bump json5 from 2.2.1 to 2.2.3 (anuraghazra#2373) Bumps [json5](https://github.com/json5/json5) from 2.2.1 to 2.2.3. - [Release notes](https://github.com/json5/json5/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/json5/json5/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) - [Commits](json5/json5@v2.2.1...v2.2.3) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: json5 dependency-type: indirect ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * test: update snapshots * Add loading Animation to Most used Language card (anuraghazra#2197) * add: text animation * compact progress done * cleaned code * non compact animation done * tests fixed + prettier * revert: vercel.json * remove: unnecessary import * added parameter in docs * style: improve syntax Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * ci: fix theme readme generation action (anuraghazra#2271) * Revert "build(deps): bump json5 from 2.2.1 to 2.2.3 (anuraghazra#2373)" (anuraghazra#2393) This reverts commit 42fdff6. * Revert "ci: fix theme readme generation action (anuraghazra#2271)" (anuraghazra#2394) This reverts commit 5ae959b. * Revert "Add loading Animation to Most used Language card (anuraghazra#2197)" (anuraghazra#2396) This reverts commit 77dcdab. * fix: retryer fixed (anuraghazra#2400) * Revert "Revert "ci: fix theme readme generation action (anuraghazra#2271)" (anuraghazra#2394)" (anuraghazra#2418) This reverts commit 70f0264. * refactor: update code formatting * Revert "Revert "Add loading Animation to Most used Language card (anuraghazra#2197)" (anuraghazra#2396)" (anuraghazra#2419) This reverts commit 4b8198f. * Update readme.md (anuraghazra#2442) * test: fix e2e tests * test: update snapshots * test: fix e2e test data * test: update e2e test data * feat: fix e2e tests * fix: fix e2e test data * feat: enable multi page star fetching for private vercel instances (anuraghazra#2159) * feat: enable multi-page stars' fetching for private vercel instances This commit enables multi-page stars' support from fetching on private Vercel instances. This feature can be disabled on the public Vercel instance by adding the `FETCH_SINGLE_PAGE_STARS=true` as an env variable in the public Vercel instance. This variable will not be present when people deploy their own Vercel instance, causing the code to fetch multiple star pages. * fix: improve stats multi-page fetching behavoir This commit makes sure that the GraphQL api is only called one time per 100 repositories. The old method added one unnecesairy GraphQL call. * docs: update documentation * style: improve code syntax Co-authored-by: Matteo Pierro <pierromatteo@gmail.com> * lol happy new year * docs: remove rate limit documentation for now Remove the `FETCH_SINGLE_PAGE_STARS` from documentation for now since it might confuse people. * fix: fix error in automatic merge * feat: make sure env variable is read Co-authored-by: Matteo Pierro <pierromatteo@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Anurag <hazru.anurag@gmail.com> * chore: resolve conflict (anuraghazra#2453) * test: fix e2e tests * test: update snapshots * test: fix e2e test data * test: update e2e test data Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * feat: parse role parameter * fix: change prod deployment branch to vercel branch to fix maxDuration bug (anuraghazra#2424) * Create deploy-prep.yml * Create deploy-prep.py * Update vercel.json * Update deploy-prep.yml * Update vercel.json * Added coauthor Co-authored-by: Dou Xiaobo <93511091+douxiaobo@users.noreply.github.com> * Update deploy-prep.yml * refactor: format code * Added if condition to disable deployments on forks Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * Update deploy-prep.yml Co-authored-by: Dou Xiaobo <93511091+douxiaobo@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Anurag Hazra <hazru.anurag@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * fix: fixes card overflow problem anuraghazra#2452 (anuraghazra#2460) This commit makes sure that the card width is formatted correctly. * fix: fix language card ownerAffiliation bug This commit fixes a small error in the stats-fetcher that caused the `exclude_repo` parameter values to be seen as the `ownerAffiliation` inputs. * ci: prevent certain actions from running on forks (anuraghazra#2466) * feat: add PAT monitoring functions (anuraghazra#2178) * feat: add PAT monitoring functions This commit adds two monitoring functions that can be used to check whether the PATs are functioning correctly: - status/up: Returns whether the PATs are rate limited. - status/pat-info: Returns information about the PATs. * feat: add shields.io dynamic badge json response This commit adds the ability to set the return format of the `/api/status/up` cloud function. When this format is set to `shields` a dynamic shields.io badge json is returned. * feat: add 'json' type to up monitor * feat: cleanup status functions * ci: decrease pat-info rate limiting time * feat: decrease monitoring functions rate limits * refactor: pat code * feat: add PAT monitoring functions This commit adds two monitoring functions that can be used to check whether the PATs are functioning correctly: - status/up: Returns whether the PATs are rate limited. - status/pat-info: Returns information about the PATs. * feat: add shields.io dynamic badge json response This commit adds the ability to set the return format of the `/api/status/up` cloud function. When this format is set to `shields` a dynamic shields.io badge json is returned. * feat: add 'json' type to up monitor * feat: cleanup status functions * ci: decrease pat-info rate limiting time * feat: decrease monitoring functions rate limits * refactor: pat code * test: fix pat-info tests * Update api/status/pat-info.js Co-authored-by: Anurag Hazra <hazru.anurag@gmail.com> * test: fix broken tests * chore: fix suspended account * chore: simplify and refactor * chore: fix test * chore: add resetIn field --------- Co-authored-by: Anurag <hazru.anurag@gmail.com> * chore: minor changes in pat info (anuraghazra#2481) * ci: add update languages action (anuraghazra#2484) * ci: add update languages action * ci: make sure PR is created when upstream languages are updated * Add `rose` theme (anuraghazra#2480) Co-authored-by: 강민지 <68285922+Kminzzi@users.noreply.github.com> * Support hide_progress for top-langs feature (anuraghazra#2514) * Add support for hide_progress in top languages feature * Fix mistake * Add documents for all languages * Remove unnecessary value check * Update top-languages-card.js * Revert document for all languages except English * Update documentation * Update documentation --------- Co-authored-by: Zohan Subhash <zohan.subhash@gmail.com> * add holi_theme (anuraghazra#2539) * add holi_theme * add holi_theme * Add one_dark_pro (anuraghazra#2507) This colors were taken from One Dark Pro theme in VSCode extention. Please add it and I will use it in my profile Co-authored-by: Zohan Subhash <zohan.subhash@gmail.com> * fix: fix JSON themes bug. (anuraghazra#2544) This fixes a JSON bug that was introduced in anuraghazra#2507. * Add auto-labelling for documentation updates (anuraghazra#2526) * ci: fix unsafe directory bug (anuraghazra#2518) This commit fixes a bug that was introduced due to a upstream change in the git package. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71849415/i-cannot-add-the-parent-directory-to-safe-directory-in-git/71904131#71904131 for more information. * Update readme.md (anuraghazra#2414) fix: missing "&" in show_icons=true in Showing icons section * test: update snapshots (anuraghazra#2519) * fix: for issue anuraghazra#2534 (anuraghazra#2536) * Add option to deploy using other services (anuraghazra#2525) * Create express.js * Update readme.md * Update readme.md * ci: update e2e tests (anuraghazra#2548) * ci: fix a bug in the theme preview action (anuraghazra#2549) * refactor: format code (anuraghazra#2550) * refactor: update languages JSON (anuraghazra#2554) Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rickstaa@users.noreply.github.com> * Preview theme workflow fix (anuraghazra#2557) * Fix octokit error * ci: make octokit instance global --------- Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * ci: preview theme workflow fix (anuraghazra#2559) * Fix octokit error * ci: make octokit instance global * Fix preview theme (move declarations to global) * refactor: make constants uppercase --------- Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * refactor: fix code comments and change 'up' rate limit (anuraghazra#2560) * Preview action fix (anuraghazra#2561) * Fix error * refactor: remove unused code --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * ci: fix theme preview action (anuraghazra#2563) * fix theme preview (anuraghazra#2564) * ci: fix theme preview action * fix: fix some bugs in the 'theme-preveiw' action * ci: fixes theme preview action (anuraghazra#2566) * ci: improve theme preview action (anuraghazra#2572) * Added "Shadow" set (Red, Green, Blue, transparent BG) (anuraghazra#2529) * Added "Shadow" set (Red, Green, Blue, transparent BG) 3 additional themes sticking primarily to flat colors, which the exception of icons and border being slightly darker. All 3 themes also have transparent backgrounds that will show differently per-user via GiHub's own light and dark themes. Transparency should also still provide easy readability for both. * Test Just want to see if we can make the themes have a transparent background. * Shadows moved under Transparent --------- Co-authored-by: Zohan Subhash <zohan.subhash@gmail.com> * ci: fix theme docs generate bug (anuraghazra#2573) * update my theme (anuraghazra#2576) * refactor: update languages JSON (anuraghazra#2596) Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rickstaa@users.noreply.github.com> * Add format stats option (anuraghazra#2155) * feat: added `format_stats` option (anuraghazra#2128) * refactor: change `format_stats` to `short_values` (anuraghazra#2128) * test: create shorten values test (anuraghazra#2128) * Update readme.md Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * refactor: rename ``short_values`` to ``number_format`` * Update readme.md Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * Update src/cards/stats-card.js Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * refactor: format codebase --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * add github_dark_dimmed theme (anuraghazra#2594) * feat(theme): add github_dark_dimmed theme * feat(theme): change github_dark_dimmed icon color * contrast ratio adjustment contrast ratio adjustment on github_dark_dimmed theme * feat(theme): readme preview * feat(theme): github themes next to each other * github themes next to each other * feat(RankIcon): add rank_icon option (anuraghazra#2628) * feat(theme): add github_dark_dimmed theme * feat(theme): change github_dark_dimmed icon color * contrast ratio adjustment contrast ratio adjustment on github_dark_dimmed theme * feat(theme): readme preview * feat(theme): github themes next to each other * github themes next to each other * feat(RankIcon): add rank icon option * feat(RankIcon): extract rankIcon to icons file * feat(RankIcon): update readme * feat(RankIcon): test coverage * Update readme.md Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * Updated the custom error there was a Typo. (anuraghazra#2618) "Something went while trying to retrieve the stats data using the GraphQL API." -> "Something went wrong while trying to retrieve the stats data using the GraphQL API." * Fix typos inside wakatime test name (anuraghazra#2617) * removed redundant comparison (anuraghazra#957) * dev (anuraghazra#1782) * fix path to powered by vercel image (anuraghazra#1792) * Synchonize cache seconds min value inside docs translations with main readme (anuraghazra#2616) * New top language algorithm implementation (anuraghazra#1732) * Reduced vercel maxDuration * Implemented new algorithm for Top Langs * Revert "Reduced vercel maxDuration" This reverts commit b0bc626. * Added documentation * Fixed broken implementation * Update fetchTopLanguages.test.js Changed tests * Now uses the general formula The parameters p and q can be set by the user. * Updated tests and added new test * Added new test New test for order by repo count. * Updated documentation Added explanation and examples for new options. * Updated documentation This was overwritten in the merge commit. * docs: improve docs and fix tests * Renamed parameters Renamed `p` and `q` to `size_weight` and `count_weight`, respectively. * Updated the documentation Changes introduced in f2516d6 --------- Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * feat: improve CONTRIBUTING.md (anuraghazra#2609) * docs: update give logo (anuraghazra#2605) * Fixed typo in word color inside README (anuraghazra#2652) * Fixed docs typo inside src/common/utils.js (anuraghazra#2651) * Fixed several typos inside preview theme script (anuraghazra#2650) * Fixed todo inside stats card data fetcher (anuraghazra#2649) * docs: fix README language card usage order (anuraghazra#2659) * Fixed vscode type error in get card colors function (anuraghazra#2660) * Show no activity error in compact layout of wakatime card (anuraghazra#2662) * Fixed card constructor docstring to resolve vscode type errors (anuraghazra#2674) * Fixed wakatime create text node func docstring to resolve vscode type errors (anuraghazra#2678) * Fixed docstring for several wakatime card gen functions to resolve multiple type errors (anuraghazra#2690) * Fixed docstring for stats card create text node function to resolve type errors (anuraghazra#2689) * Update codecov action version to resolve github action deprecation warning (anuraghazra#2677) * Add PRs cache cleaning workflow (anuraghazra#2661) * build(deps): bump yaml from 2.1.3 to 2.2.2 (anuraghazra#2644) Bumps [yaml](https://github.com/eemeli/yaml) from 2.1.3 to 2.2.2. - [Release notes](https://github.com/eemeli/yaml/releases) - [Commits](eemeli/yaml@v2.1.3...v2.2.2) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: yaml dependency-type: indirect ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * fix(wakatime-fetcher): add default range to prevent user not found error (anuraghazra#2670) * feat(theme): add github_dark_dimmed theme * feat(theme): change github_dark_dimmed icon color * contrast ratio adjustment contrast ratio adjustment on github_dark_dimmed theme * feat(theme): readme preview * feat(theme): github themes next to each other * github themes next to each other * feat(RankIcon): add rank icon option * feat(RankIcon): extract rankIcon to icons file * feat(RankIcon): update readme * feat(RankIcon): test coverage * Update readme.md Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * add wakatime default range * update wakatime demos in readme with most active user * update wakatime demo in readme * remove &range=all_time from wakatime demos in readme --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * Cover with test changes in anuraghazra#2662 pull request (anuraghazra#2673) * test: fix mistaken pageInfo.endCursor keys (anuraghazra#2657) The previous mock logic was too simplistic and has been fixed in the commit. If the mock logic had been properly implemented, then the mistaken pageInfo.endCursor keys should have made the test case "should fetch two pages of stars if 'FETCH_MULTI_PAGE_STARS' env variable is set to `true`" stuck. * docs: update wakatime user (anuraghazra#2697) The old example user doesn't have a WakaTime account anymore. * Fixed docstring for get styles function to resolve vscode type errors (anuraghazra#2700) * Fixed axios imports inside docstrings to resolve vscode type errors (anuraghazra#2699) * Fixed typos inside bug report issue template (anuraghazra#2706) * Update wakatime user inside docs translations (anuraghazra#2705) * Fixed docstring for create language text node function (anuraghazra#2704) * Fixed docstring for wakatime card recalculate percentages function (anuraghazra#2710) * add pie chart layout to language card (anuraghazra#2099) * add pie chart layout to language card * resolve failing top-lang card tests * scale down pie chart * update readme.md * Update readme.md Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * style: format code * update donut layout to be created without dependencies * minor update * style: format readme * resolve failing tests * refactor: clean up code and add extra tests This commit cleans up the pie chart generation code and adds additional tests. * feat: improve pie chart positioning * rename layout pie to donut * add animation to donut layout * refactor: rename pie and doughnut to donut * feat: decrease donus animation delay --------- Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * Fixed docstring for create donut language node function (anuraghazra#2713) * Add missing argument to create compact lang node function to resolve vscode type error (anuraghazra#2714) * Top languages card pie layout (anuraghazra#2709) * Top languages card donut layout * Top languages card pie layout * renames * dev * docs * dev * dev * animations * dev * handle one language * Docs: add missing top languages card layouts. (anuraghazra#2717) * Top languages card render test: move repeated code into helper function (anuraghazra#2718) * Docs (translations): add missing top languages card layouts. (anuraghazra#2728) * Top languages card donut vertical layout (anuraghazra#2701) * Top languages card donut layout * dev * dev * dev * dev * Docs (translations): add top languages card donut vertical layout (anuraghazra#2739) * Docs: fix top languages card available layouts number (anuraghazra#2738) * Ranking System v2 (anuraghazra#1186) * Revise rank calculation * Replace contributions by commits * Lower average stats and S+ threshold * Fix calculateRank.test.js Missing key in dictionary constructor Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> * refactor: run prettier * feat: change star weight to 0.75 * Separate PRs and issues * Tweak weights * Add count_private back * fix: enable 'count_private' again * test: fix tests * refactor: improve code formatting * Higher targets --------- Co-authored-by: Rick Staa <rick.staa@outlook.com> --------- Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: Raymond Nook <59678453+developStorm@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rick.staa@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Huzaifa Khilawala <55500003+RedHeadphone@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Anurag Hazra <hazru.anurag@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Zohan Subhash <zohan.subhash@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Matteo Pierro <pierromatteo@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Dou Xiaobo <93511091+douxiaobo@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: 강민지 <68285922+Meezzi@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: 강민지 <68285922+Kminzzi@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Amir <amirhhakimnejad@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Mohamed Hassan <mo.hassan2792@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Oleksandr Perlov <oleksandrperlov@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Cateline Mnemosyne <123184375+catelinemnemosyne@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Raphael Gonçalves <89359384+raphaelricardo10@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Rehman <rehman.2468@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: rickstaa <rickstaa@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Etanarvazac Revorix <etanarvazac@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Eduardo Zaniboni <67515606+eduardozaniboni@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Caeden Perelli-Harris <caedenperelliharris@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Fabiano Couto <facodeli@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: LOKESH SINGH <77314004+LokeshXs@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alexandr Garbuzov <53787217+qwerty541@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: kitswas <90329875+kitswas@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Rongrong <i@rong.moe> Co-authored-by: Nabil Alamin <aminonimisi2@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Alexandr Garbuzov <qwerty541zxc@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: François Rozet <francois.rozet@outlook.com>

Revise rank calculation

2c4331d

francois-rozet mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2021

Weight metrics differently CrafterKolyan/github-readme-stats#1

Closed

Replace contributions by commits

7a652bf

francois-rozet changed the title ~~Revise rank calculation~~ Patch rank calculation Jul 13, 2021

francois-rozet changed the title ~~Patch rank calculation~~ Patch rank calculation (not yet another theme) Jul 15, 2021

anuraghazra mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2021

Ranking System v1 #960

Closed

Lower average stats and S+ threshold

9c01a95

anuraghazra changed the title ~~Patch rank calculation (not yet another theme)~~ Ranking System v2 Sep 7, 2021

GaryHilares approved these changes Sep 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Oct 1, 2021

Followers #1347

Closed

Retire letter-based grades. Instead display (mode rating - rating)/sigma. #1369

Closed

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rickstaa mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2021

Ranking does not appear to reflect contributions #1425

Closed

rickstaa requested changes Nov 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

tests/calculateRank.test.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

qwerty541 reviewed May 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

rickstaa merged commit c96e84a into anuraghazra:master May 26, 2023

This was referenced May 26, 2023

docs: update ranking information #2749

Closed

fix e2e rank #2750

Merged

Git hub stats with the wrong score letter? #2751

Closed

francois-rozet deleted the patch-rank branch June 1, 2023 11:21

aaron-muti-420 reviewed Jan 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Ranking System v2 #1186

Ranking System v2 #1186

Uh oh!

Conversation

francois-rozet commented Jul 13, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Jul 13, 2021

Uh oh!

anuraghazra commented Jul 18, 2021

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Jul 18, 2021

Uh oh!

RodrigoDornelles commented Aug 16, 2021

Uh oh!

anuraghazra commented Sep 7, 2021

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Sep 14, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

akhildevelops commented Sep 14, 2021

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Sep 14, 2021

Uh oh!

akhildevelops commented Sep 15, 2021

Uh oh!

anuraghazra commented Sep 19, 2021

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Sep 19, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

anuraghazra commented Sep 19, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Sep 19, 2021

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Oct 15, 2021

Uh oh!

dreamyguy commented Oct 19, 2021

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented Nov 9, 2021

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented May 22, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qwerty541 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ZjzMisaka commented May 25, 2023

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented May 25, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented May 25, 2023

Uh oh!

ZjzMisaka commented May 25, 2023

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented May 25, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FleetAdmiralJakob commented May 26, 2023

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented May 26, 2023

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented May 26, 2023

Uh oh!

sunpm commented May 29, 2023

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented May 29, 2023

Uh oh!

lorezyra commented May 30, 2023

Uh oh!

Dgdiniz commented Jun 2, 2023

Uh oh!

francois-rozet commented Jun 2, 2023

Uh oh!

rickstaa commented Jun 2, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

francois-rozet commented Jul 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading

francois-rozet commented Sep 14, 2021 •

edited

Loading

francois-rozet commented Sep 19, 2021 •

edited

Loading

anuraghazra commented Sep 19, 2021 •

edited

Loading

rickstaa commented May 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

francois-rozet commented May 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rickstaa commented May 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rickstaa commented Jun 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rickstaa commented Jun 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading