Weekly overview of the bug-hunting category- week 48, 2018

in utopian-io •  11 months ago  (edited)

This is a report on the weekly contributions to the bug hunting category. The post contain basic stats like the number of contributions received by the category, an excerpt on new contributors if there are any and a detailed comparison of the weeks output with previous weeks.

utopian (1).jpg

Previous Reports

Bug hunting contributions summary

  • Week 48: November 22nd - 29th
  • 1 Contribution
  • 1 new contributor, @victorier
  • An average score of 0

The contribution

ContributorURLProjectScore
@victorierError on "Estimated Account Value" in walletsteemit0

@victorier, a first-time contributor to the category, she discovered an estimation error in the steem wallet, in her words "either she's been made a millionaire or there was an error at play ", she hoped the former was the case :) . Unfortunately, a similar report had been submitted to the steemit/condenser issues page. The contribution was reviewed by @tobias-g who advised the new millionaire on how best to contribute to utopian.io and the bug-hunting category in particular.

First of all, it's great to see that you're trying to get involved with helping the Steemit team by reporting issues about the Condenser. I can even see that you reported this on Github (https://github.com/steemit/condenser/issues/3102) which is great. With that said this particular issue is not something that can be rewarded by Utopian, this is because of this particular issue has already been reported on GitHub prior to your report. This can be found here:

https://github.com/steemit/condenser/issues/3101

Though the contribution was tagged a duplicate, a fix was duly appropriated by the steemit team. The problem is explicitly explained below as it was also experienced in the steem-js library.

This line fails to divide by the quote part of the feed price ratio and therefore computes an incorrect price when the quote is not 1.000.

https://github.com/steemit/steem-js/blob/master/src/formatter.js#L103

This is the case currently as the consensus logic is adjusting the feed price to maintain the 10% SBD to STEEM market cap limit, resulting in a complex ratio: "median_sbd_price": { "base": "122615385.381 SBD", "quote": "283814541.914 STEEM" }. It could also occur if witnesses started reporting the price feed using a quote other than 1.000. For example, this could happen at very low STEEM prices, in order to enable more than three fractional digits.

This is now causing incorrect output in many UIs

Cause
        if (feed_price && feed_price.has('base') && feed_price.has('quote')) {
            const { base, quote } = feed_price.toJS();
            if (/ SBD$/.test(base) && / STEEM$/.test(quote))
                price_per_steem = parseFloat(base.split(' ')[0]);
                
        }

The error in estimation is as a result of this line price_per_steem = parseFloat(base.split(' ')[0]);

Fix

        if (feed_price && feed_price.has('base') && feed_price.has('quote')) {
            const { base, quote } = feed_price.toJS();
            if (/ SBD$/.test(base) && / STEEM$/.test(quote))
                price_per_steem =
                    parseFloat(base.split(' ')[0]) /
                    parseFloat(quote.split(' ')[0]);
        }

In summary, there was just one contribution to the category this week. Unfortunately, this was not scored as it was a duplicate of an already opened issue. There were no staff picks. The sole contribution was by a new contributor to the category, @victorier.

Hunter Totals and Average

bargraph 15.png

@mightypanda after five weeks is the most consistent of the hunters and still tops the bug-hunters table with 3 finds, @stmdev still sits pretty with the highest average reward score of 80 previously occupied by @mattockfs at 72.5.

Weekly Average Score and number of Contributions

bargraph 16.png

No contribution was scored this week, hence the week's average score is zero. The last time the average was zero was week 42 when no contribution was received by the category. Note that in the calculation of the averages of the previous weeks, the zero scored contributions are not included.

Reports Reviewed By Reviewer

bargraph 17.png
The 14 contributions received by the category in the past five weeks were assessed by three reviewers. Of the 14 contributions, 11 were rewarded.

  • @sachincool have now reviewed 2 contributions (40, 40) with an average score of 40.
  • @fego have reviewed 8 contributions (45.5, 72.5, 44.5, 80, 35.5, 80) with an average score of 54.2.
  • @tobias-g have reviewed 4 contributions (37.5, 65, 70) with an average score of 57.5.

Other items

In order to avoid getting a reward score of zero, bug hunters are advised to browse through the issues tracker page of any project on GitHub to confirm the uniqueness of the error and avoid duplicating an already reported issue.

For bug-hunters and open source enthusiasts looking to help open source projects, please take a look at our whitelist of projects that you can submit bug reports for:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S7ayFTEy5CBMyeJvFRgq5JUjlqZxFjWAWhhrBL0GC60/edit#gid=1954068373


If you wish to have your open source projects added to our whitelist you can contact us on our help channel at our discord server. You can also leave your questions and comments below :)


Thanks

@fego

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Hello @fego,

Reading your summary post was a pleasant experience even though I noticed few inaccuracies which you corrected after notice. It is unfortunate that there was only one new contribution submitted during this week, also considering that the final score was 0.

I like that you add a short description of the experience with the new contributor and parts of the review, highlighting what was good and what was bad.

On the other hand, I believe that you could reorganise your summaries and put reviewed contributions in the week. That was one of the things I did not realise while reading the summary for the first time. I think that you could focus on posts that were reviewed and perhaps add a note about posts that are going to be reviewed in the following review week.

I believe that the current effort of the team should be put into expanding the current whitelist as it is still in effect. That could give people more options in submitting their reports and issues with particular projects. In that regard I would say that closer collaboration and organisation of planned testing cycles can be in place. What do you think about that?

Unlike other categories, you are sort of forced to include much longer time period to be able to compare the number of reviews.

I will include some issues I found still in the summary:

  • Hunter Totals and Average
    • The chart says that data comes from the last 7 weeks. The complementary text, however, mentions 5 weeks.
  • Weekly Average Score and number of Contributions
    • I'd prefer if you said that the contribution was scored 0 as you described at the top of the summary instead of writing that none was scored.

This post was reviewed and scored according to a simple set of metrics dedicated for the iamutopian category.

Chat with us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]

Thanks for the concise review and sorry for the very late reply. There's a lot to improve on my part, I would make sure to put the suggestions and corrections you've given to use in the next report.

I believe that the current effort of the team should be put into expanding the current whitelist as it is still in effect.

True that, we hope to utilise the #iamutopian tag to push out posts aimed at open source project owners on steem and have them on board the utopian community, not necessarily just steem related projects but open source in general and also aid in making the category more visible in the steem community.

We look forward to providing quality assurance services by organising testing cycles for project owners before and after project launch, this should help boost the public image of the category as well.

Thank you for your review, @espoem! Keep up the good work!

Hey, @fego!

Thanks for contributing on Utopian.
We’re already looking forward to your next contribution!

Get higher incentives and support Utopian.io!
Simply set @utopian.pay as a 5% (or higher) payout beneficiary on your contribution post (via SteemPlus or Steeditor).

Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV.

Vote for Utopian Witness!

Congratulations @fego! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You made more than 500 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 600 upvotes.

Click here to view your Board of Honor
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:

Saint Nicholas challenge for good boys and girls

Support SteemitBoard's project! Vote for its witness and get one more award!