diff --git "a/data/duo_chat/v1/jsonl/context/resources/c973769196ed4160a7b69a6b00e20c89.jsonl" "b/data/duo_chat/v1/jsonl/context/resources/c973769196ed4160a7b69a6b00e20c89.jsonl"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/duo_chat/v1/jsonl/context/resources/c973769196ed4160a7b69a6b00e20c89.jsonl"
@@ -0,0 +1,748 @@
+{"id": 1469295673, "note": "@ramistry Assigning this to you as discussed. :slight_smile:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "38b30d5809070a434e01d7f712c68bc8716072a3", "created_at": "2023-07-14 04:46:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-14 04:46:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1480725131, "note": "@egrieff, I have tried the IssueSetSubscription mutation for work items in the !127137 MR and it worked as required. It is also not allowing guest user to subscribe on confidential work item. \ud83d\ude42 \n\nI just have doubt regarding the naming convention of the mutation. I am not sure if we should go further with current name or have a new mutation like you suggested i.e. `WorkItemSetSubscription`.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 13375904, "discussion_id": "60d393f26d1fb1fae1797e2e78d6ab4d2ae4a680", "created_at": "2023-07-21 07:22:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 07:22:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1404104068, "note": "**Proposal**: We can use `IssueSetSubscription` for subscribing and unsubscribing to the work item. If the existing mutation's arguments are not suitable, we can add a new mutation e.g. `WorkItemSetSubscription`.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "60d393f26d1fb1fae1797e2e78d6ab4d2ae4a680", "created_at": "2023-05-24 15:48:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 07:22:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1481044252, "note": "@ramistry Thanks for confirming, good point about the name and also I noticed that `IssueSetSubscription` requires a project so this won't work when work items are supported at the group level.\n\nI've opened https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/127220 to add a new mutation that requires the work item's global id instead, but this cannot be used until %\"16.4\". Do you think we can use https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/127137 for now in order to fix the permissions problem?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "60d393f26d1fb1fae1797e2e78d6ab4d2ae4a680", "created_at": "2023-07-21 10:49:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 11:03:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 3860200, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 10:50:42 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1481062002, "note": "@egrieff, yes, I think we can use !127137 as long as we do not have major changes in the mutation input and response in new mutation. :smile:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 13375904, "discussion_id": "60d393f26d1fb1fae1797e2e78d6ab4d2ae4a680", "created_at": "2023-07-21 11:03:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 11:03:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 13375904, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 11:03:48 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1481081870, "note": "@ramistry Ok! The changes should not be major, just:\n\n- mutation input: `projectPath`, `iid` and `subscribedState` -> `id` and `subscribed`\n- response: `issue` -> `workItem`\n\nWould that be possible?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "60d393f26d1fb1fae1797e2e78d6ab4d2ae4a680", "created_at": "2023-07-21 11:17:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 11:17:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 3860200, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 11:17:21 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1481101613, "note": "Yes, that will do. :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 13375904, "discussion_id": "60d393f26d1fb1fae1797e2e78d6ab4d2ae4a680", "created_at": "2023-07-21 11:29:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 13:54:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1491357196, "note": "The actual issue is fixed and working on gitlab.com. But we are still working on few other concerns mentioned in the [thread](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/412831#note_1404104068 \"Guest users are not able to subscribe to work items\"). \n\n@egrieff, I am keeping the issue open till the https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/127220 MR is merged. Does that sound right?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 13375904, "discussion_id": "64f0db074dce6d0dd7c29994a57fdb1e7a51f4ab", "created_at": "2023-07-28 05:23:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-28 14:08:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1492242485, "note": "@ramistry Sounds good to me :thumbsup: \n\nI've created the ~frontend issue for updating the mutation again next milestone: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/420151. Feel free to amend it if needed.\n\nI'll validate and close this issue once https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/127220 is in production.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "64f0db074dce6d0dd7c29994a57fdb1e7a51f4ab", "created_at": "2023-07-28 14:08:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 05:23:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 3860200, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-28 14:08:32 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1493409135, "note": "Verified in production with 16.3.0-pre [49750df77fa](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/commits/49750df77fa)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "55966de7fe55806909024fc9c340f366bc131907", "created_at": "2023-07-31 08:59:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 16:30:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 128440335, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978957, "note": "@dbogatov Thanks for the proposal. We'll just have to leave this open and see if it becomes a popular request.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "73cf193764726f4ed724d78d4b59d4f81efe83cc", "created_at": "2017-04-19 04:14:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-04-19 04:14:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978961, "note": "@wagnerpinheiro, [S]LOC metrics are rather old. They are not actual now (only in 80-90s they were). Your idea is pretty but only for developers ego. For really gentlemen customers GITLAB maybe have to improve their charts with different modern metrics. As example, for analyzing object-oriented languages they can add metric of Chidamber & Kemerer.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 346483, "discussion_id": "8a87fb55f491fc68d6e8910b2bec6e1371d194fb", "created_at": "2017-04-21 19:52:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-31 12:36:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 346483, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978963, "note": "@yachmenov_c_ I have to admit, I had to look up what Chidamber & Kemerer metrics were. And yes, I would love to see those metrics in GitLab.\n\n**However**, I feel like it is quite hard (or say, resource heavy) to implement those. Each language will have to provide a service to get OOP relations. We cannot derive those metrics just by parsing the text.\n\n**On the other side**, simple line counter per language (even the one which omits comments and empty lines) is relatively easy to implement.\n\nAs for developers' ego, I have to admit it would not mind seeing LOC metrics, but I am sure there are other reasons for these metrics.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "8a87fb55f491fc68d6e8910b2bec6e1371d194fb", "created_at": "2017-04-21 20:00:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-31 12:36:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978964, "note": "@dbogatov, I mostly agree with you, really they can implement functionality you mentioned, and it would be great. Nice point!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 346483, "discussion_id": "8a87fb55f491fc68d6e8910b2bec6e1371d194fb", "created_at": "2017-04-21 20:11:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-04-21 20:11:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978965, "note": "ZD ticket: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/80860\n\nA Customer requested this feature. :)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 695248, "discussion_id": "2dba3df39df1cd81040cb0bc86091470aac43ffa", "created_at": "2017-08-03 18:07:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-08-03 18:07:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978970, "note": "This would be awesome!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 239547, "discussion_id": "604137042a54634c99ba7cda9b19e4db3570b396", "created_at": "2017-09-29 02:34:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-09-29 02:34:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978981, "note": "This is getting popular\n\n@DouweM ~\"Accepting Merge Requests\" for this one?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "f1bbac293ede2d142630a69c9b499642ce9a40f8", "created_at": "2017-11-18 10:51:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-18 10:51:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978986, "note": "@markglenfletcher I think it may not be well defined enough yet for ~\"Accepting Merge Requests\" . We removed the repository language a while ago because it didn't perform well, so we'll need to figure out way to restore it without reintroducing the performance issue.\n\nThis is related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/40236 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23931. \n\n/cc @jramsay", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 87854, "discussion_id": "23bac7a1ece7d87f5607254715120cb9067506ea", "created_at": "2017-11-20 13:02:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-20 13:02:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978988, "note": "If we can provide a foundation in gitlab-ce#23931 that computes the language stats without performance, we could definitely open this up for ~\"Accepting Merge Requests\"", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1187333, "discussion_id": "812e8d43c4b74c029c7327a6b783be67b2a0cd78", "created_at": "2017-11-21 15:16:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-21 15:17:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 1187333, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978997, "note": "Having the LOC in the table with the language breakdown and percentage would be great.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1512428, "discussion_id": "4a841d10fb4925ca2b102435a39a249fb1f1bb39", "created_at": "2018-04-11 02:26:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-04-11 02:26:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978998, "note": "Hello,\n\nDisplay the LOC in the chart would be a very nice feature :slight_smile: \n\nAny update about this ?\n\nThank you very much.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2182793, "discussion_id": "55170edc6cc50d1a2a20760c0bd5760b0dba68b6", "created_at": "2018-04-11 07:59:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-04-11 07:59:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979004, "note": "Hi,\u00a0I haven't heard anything back yet.\nDennis\nDennis Biringer | Principal Software EngineerPacific Defense Systems, LLC (PDS)Integrity Applications Incorporated535 Lipoa Parkway\u00a0 Suite 101, Kihei HI, 96753dbiringer@integrity-apps.com(808) 214-0765\n\n[smime.p7s](/uploads/e849eea0083b79828f578febe315bdcd/smime.p7s)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1512428, "discussion_id": "55168747dda9172740a2eaa5e847403ed43121de", "created_at": "2018-04-12 01:49:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-04-12 01:49:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979005, "note": "We also would like to see the total number of lines of code, files, etc. Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 102482, "discussion_id": "a6edf2d747aa859d84a4adfab95b10d53d7774d2", "created_at": "2018-05-31 17:37:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-05-31 17:37:16 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979019, "note": "@shellyniz Currently it's presented as a percentage via the API:\n- https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/api/projects.html#languages", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "d201f77821e20f12477856580eab2e40804cc2dd", "created_at": "2018-08-14 11:08:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-14 11:08:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979020, "note": "Silly me, I was looking for it under the repo API. That's a big help, thanks!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1861874, "discussion_id": "093b696a8537efb99106d9d0b003220eb6ee8c01", "created_at": "2018-08-14 11:14:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-14 11:14:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979022, "note": "+1\n\nIt's a great feature to have especially if you're to brag about how much work has been put into the project in a presentation or something.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 709639, "discussion_id": "7b43271d3058f31f25e92e49015ea9efc4afc7d0", "created_at": "2018-11-13 21:05:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-09-17 20:07:16 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979029, "note": "I don't see us getting to this anytime soon, but I'm happy to label this with gitlab-ce~1890178 for a community contribution. \n\nWe express languages as % of repo, might we also show the absolute LOC? The Charts page might be a sensible place to display this. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/graphs/master/charts for an example. The project overview page could also work, we currently use a multi-colored horizontal line to represent this and show percentages there on mouseover.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1086520, "discussion_id": "1f57d0559fe42979c7e6d35e07dbbbb6131d9855", "created_at": "2018-11-13 21:16:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-13 21:18:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 1086520, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979031, "note": "Hi @jeremy\\_ \nDo you want to adding this feature with 'Lines Number'?And so 'Total Lines Number'?\nWhat's your opinion?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 37100, "discussion_id": "34d9eb930ce114af06333350c5ff55483637cf7e", "created_at": "2018-11-13 22:05:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-13 22:05:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979032, "note": "Hi @markglenfletcher \nIt's very good things that showing percent,but lines number complete it's feature,doesn't?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 37100, "discussion_id": "a92bea136cc9e32d787aa5742ed869a21d2ab49c", "created_at": "2018-11-13 22:12:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-13 22:12:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979035, "note": "> Do you want to adding this feature with 'Lines Number'? And so 'Total Lines Number'? What's your opinion?\n\nI'd love to hear your proposal, but I think the Charts page may be an easy place to add this:\n\n![image](/uploads/198f585f7e807ed931757b47a519d135/image.png)\n\nWe could include a separate column for LOC on each row, and include a \"Total\" row at the bottom that displays the sum of the rows. What do you think?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1086520, "discussion_id": "a4b97198d010ed7e95fc262d1f29035f71961eda", "created_at": "2018-12-28 06:32:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-24 12:21:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 1086520, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-03-10 12:54:08 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979037, "note": "any update about this feature ?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2346644, "discussion_id": "075f869895c6f828be69c382f91a4a9b2dba20b5", "created_at": "2019-01-13 08:43:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-01-13 08:43:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979038, "note": "Just so its stated explicitly, the language bar on the projects overview page is based on bytes. Iteration over each blob to count the number of lines will be quite expensive and to make it performant on gitlab.com scale will be quite the challenge :smile: Bytes are chosen as Git stores the size of each blob with its name. So if a blob has the path `path/to/file.rb` it can take the extension and detect it's Ruby. It already has the number of bytes, so it can move on.\n\nLines however is harder, as now you'd have to either iterate each blob each time, or be clever with caching combined with diffing, which in turn might lead to race conditions.\n\nThat all being said, this would require a new RPC to Gitaly, and gitaly-proto changes. Happy to review MRs there! :cat:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 101578, "discussion_id": "570bda01e243b5cf50fce1ba6adb9cd4605169f4", "created_at": "2019-01-22 11:57:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-01-22 11:57:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979039, "note": "Not sure if this helps anyone, but if you use GitBash (or linux terminal) and go into your local repo and type this command:\n`find . -not -path \u201c*/.git/*\u201d | xargs wc -l`\nYou get the total line counts. No extra things to install - just a bash command.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2223731, "discussion_id": "a894203f7adeeb1a1ed60f595000c3d28bf650ed", "created_at": "2019-03-06 17:41:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-03-06 17:41:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979041, "note": "There is another possible way by using the git ls-files command with a file type filter.\n\n* Java example: `git ls-files *.java *.xml | xargs wc -l`\n* Ruby example: `git ls-files *.rb Rakefile Gemfile | xargs wc -l`\n\nOr whatever files you want to include in your count. It can also works in subfolders to provide counts of just the contents of that folder.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2814876, "discussion_id": "78a3685ac84f3e9f6999bd406e3ee07296be78f7", "created_at": "2019-03-06 18:22:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-03-06 18:22:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979042, "note": "My developer ego gives +1 for this stats. I think, if you count the lines anyway, it might be no problem to offer different stats as options, because the counting might be the most expensive part anyway. \n\n*Yeah* for looking at your developer productivity in numbers. :-)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 491329, "discussion_id": "a8d439996cd80acb0e887e19d4c7a32c3b38f3f7", "created_at": "2019-04-09 09:10:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-04-09 09:10:04 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979043, "note": "This is not graphical and not included in gitlab, but it serves my interest totally. Also it might be a good starting point for Gitlab's implementation: \n\nhttps://github.com/AlDanial/cloc\n\nUse `cloc --vcs git` to count only watched files in a git repository.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 491329, "discussion_id": "e05053a4fedccfbd67d6045862d003aaff0c6202", "created_at": "2019-04-09 09:20:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-04-09 09:20:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979061, "note": "@aakriti.gupta, should we just close this one in favor of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104, since it's a prerequisite?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "a886f94362ed9c996f0cdc42bf01b0c7181a7f5b", "created_at": "2019-07-03 11:46:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-08 09:36:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979063, "note": "@dbogatov, yes, we will take everything from this one in account - it's planned for 12.2. Do you want to comment on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104? What's your opinion?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "45e71e7ac76abec3784d03cbdb2b1cbc301899ff", "created_at": "2019-07-03 11:56:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 11:56:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 3511154, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979064, "note": "This should not be moved to EE as the initial feature was added by the community.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1283330, "discussion_id": "6d5ac02291aab2c6a295e4df9adacd278f1278fc", "created_at": "2019-07-03 13:32:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 13:32:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979065, "note": "Thanks @max-wittig for pointing out! The EE issue has more content, which will be available on group/instance level. We would like to move all analytics into one space in the top nav bar, so will be thinking through how to combine what is in cc now and the additional functionality we will be adding in ee. Any feedback is welcome!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "50ead744b305fa1f532705f92d1dbd1b1ec7a298", "created_at": "2019-07-03 15:22:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 15:22:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979066, "note": "As mentioned below, as long as we keep the history through a merge or copying over information, it sounds good to close this with an update @valexieva :)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4158075, "discussion_id": "a886f94362ed9c996f0cdc42bf01b0c7181a7f5b", "created_at": "2019-07-08 09:36:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-08 09:36:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979067, "note": "@valexieva I wrote a small script, which reports the languages an instance has by exporting prometheus metrics. Relying just on absolute values would make a lot more sense, than the approach that I'm using now. But I won't use absolute numbers, if `EE` is required for this.\n\nhttps://github.com/max-wittig/gitlab-languages\n\nI think it would be fine, if the Graph feature stays in EE, but it would be nice, if the API would return absolute numbers.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1283330, "discussion_id": "7bde2d02397a5cb7ae5b0b940c065224158203f5", "created_at": "2019-07-08 14:35:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-08 14:42:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 1283330, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979069, "note": "Keeping this open until we complete: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/13163. After that will close, the existing functionality will be available in CE, further functionality as per https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104 in EE.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "94574f2b40c78694f4096c523c514fcca93041ce", "created_at": "2019-08-01 13:19:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-08-01 13:19:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979073, "note": "Hi, we have scheduled LOC plus language trends for 12.3 - please find here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104#note_194198775. We will also ensure that it's available for CE users in this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65616 before we remove the https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/-/graphs/master/charts", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "16af6bd6af9d839ee0856e4771ce2d012a7dc48e", "created_at": "2019-08-05 10:11:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-08-05 10:11:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 291742295, "note": "Github provides this feature, it would be nice to be able to obtain comparable metrics from Gitlab as we are using both.\n\nOur use case to get these numbers is for figuring out the prevalence of code in any given language across our entire codebase to inform us with requirements for code analysis tools etc. \"90% of language Y in repository X\" without any context to the number is mostly a useless metric. We need to understand how much language Y there is in totality across our multiple SCM systems. Now i can only count how many repos have a given language in general which is not exactly the same thing.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "10fe6a459ec6c87e9ed31c7bbd1a8b595922945b", "created_at": "2020-02-20 14:53:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-20 21:49:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 291953639, "note": "@unitysipu \nI would say for your use case it is better to just create a tool that clones all the repos you want metrics on and runs cloc or a similar tool - https://www.npmjs.com/package/cloc\nHaving these metrics across groups/organizations in github and gitlab makes less sense to me than to provide some information about what powers a given project.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1612315, "discussion_id": "10fe6a459ec6c87e9ed31c7bbd1a8b595922945b", "created_at": "2020-02-20 21:49:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-20 21:49:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 292157164, "note": "The amount of code often correlates with things like risk. It's sorta interesting from analysis point of view if you have projects that have 500, 5000, 500k or 5M lines of code. You may want to prioritize or categorize the big projects over the small ones (obviously that's not the full picture, depends on what that code is used for etc.). But just looking at our entire codebase / repositories from the top and knowing there's \"90% of PHP\" in some project without understanding there's a million lines of it doesn't really help. So while individual teams may have a good grasp of their project, somebody looking over our entire portfolio you need more information to figure out who you should get in touch with. Obviously you can also try to check the file size metrics etc. and try to filter out uninteresting file types or other similar cumbersome workarounds but it's just more work to land on data that could easily be provided by the platform directly.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "10fe6a459ec6c87e9ed31c7bbd1a8b595922945b", "created_at": "2020-02-21 09:41:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-21 09:41:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 292558285, "note": "Even if you have 1000 repos, it would still not be that much work to write a tool that accumulates all the information using the method I described, and you're going to get it a lot faster than by asking gitlab to add a feature. \nAs for expanding the scope of this issue to cover groups and organizations as a whole, I guess gitlab devs might consider that as an enterprise feature at some point.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1612315, "discussion_id": "10fe6a459ec6c87e9ed31c7bbd1a8b595922945b", "created_at": "2020-02-21 20:38:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-21 20:38:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 293145108, "note": "Yes, *obviously* there are workarounds that require you to analyze all the source code yourself. That's not the point of this feature request. I see the conversation revolving around suggestions and local optimizations for individual teams / developers or the importance of the amount of code in context of individuals. I figured it's prudent to provide another point of view that may have an impact on the thinking of why it's important to have this implemented. There are other use cases for the LOC/Language metrics that can be of importance for somebody who is looking at your organization as a whole.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "10fe6a459ec6c87e9ed31c7bbd1a8b595922945b", "created_at": "2020-02-24 08:36:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-24 08:36:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 299631157, "note": "Honestly, with that chain of argument: Why have a commit graph? You can do this locally on your git repo. Or why have a bugtracker? You can just install trac separately. Or why have a wiki? Haven't you heard of mediaWiki? And so on. \n\nFact is, that this is a standard feature that has many uses for individuals and companies (also for example if I actually will bother to contribute to a code base or if its not worth it because id have to learn X new languages).", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4911777, "discussion_id": "044bd214cb760ef42c44b314a3243601c4c2f6a7", "created_at": "2020-03-05 12:42:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-05-26 15:10:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 4911777, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2021-09-17 20:10:44 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 299627593, "note": "I disagree. It's absolutely not ridiculous at all to have _code metrics_ available in the source code repository you might use.\n\nAny external tool will have to analyse the code outside of the SCM makes the whole process inherently ineffective and slow by design. Gitlab (and github) already has the code inside it and therefore is in the best position to provide metrics and data on it. Furthermore, modern (sophisticated) code analysis tools _integrate directly_ with Github these days through Github applications, but even they cannot provide this data either without analyzing the entire codebase separately.\n\nWhile workarounds exist they are all bad in a large organization. I agree that it's clear this is not a priority based on the fact it's been open for two years, but also it's clear that the reasoning and discussion around this feature is very narrow and developer (ego) oriented.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "005fc553fd9580804c00dd974606b58258f6d149", "created_at": "2020-03-05 12:36:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-05-26 15:10:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 293348432, "note": "##### For person\nPeople expect it, since various metrics implemented in GitHub. At some point everyone just genuinely interested in those metrics even only for self-esteem. And it is frustrating to not find them on GitLab. And since GitHub made everyone think to have them out-of-the-box, people became lazy and don't want to pollute their work environment with some difficult code inspection tools that they will use once just because of curiosity. \n\n##### For big team\nIf you are working in a solid company with big code base, and you professionally perform code analysis and give consulting based on it, then it is ridiculous to do it on the basis of GitHub or GitLab, likely you will need to have more sophisticated special tool for it.\n\n##### Conclusion\nSo this feature is not a mandatory. In first place GitLab need to improve its role system, this is a real bummer:) But GitLab doesn't do it for 2 years, so probably they have more important tasks. I prefer to use GitHub because of role system and metrics.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 635873, "discussion_id": "96c7f0adc49d8ea2d2f64108bea473166fe3f13c", "created_at": "2020-02-24 13:32:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-29 19:35:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 612192220, "note": "A premium/silver customer has requested for this feature over support ticket: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/220808 (internal link)\n\nIn particular they'd like an ability to query statistics about lines of code per detected language type, within each, and across all repositories under a group.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 7536567, "discussion_id": "80839b906be084dee24b6e6d95e01d91af4e6b4a", "created_at": "2021-06-26 16:55:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-21 13:07:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 7536567, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-06-26 16:56:57 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 388534468, "note": "I am proposing in another issue to update an existing open source tool to add MBs of code to the reports.\n\nThis is related to helping customers (and prospects) be able to estimate the long term costs of security scanning solutions that charge by lines or MBs of code.\n\nIf the tool were a CI stage, but GitLab could receive and parse the report to a UI - then the compute for this would only performed for and paid by customers who want the counts.\n\nhttps://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/233018", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-07-31 00:05:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-08-31 13:21:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 164827, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "{}", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 408694264, "note": "@DarwinJS the blocker for us on this feature is a line-counting capability in Gitaly.  I noticed that [SCC](https://github.com/boyter/scc) is written in Go, as Gitaly is.  Seems like that could be a very happy coincidence for us.  Did you happen to dive deep enough into SCC to have an opinion about how challenging it might be to integrate into Gitaly?\n\nNote for others: SCC is the line-counting software that Darwin recommended in his [blog post](https://acloudguru.com/blog/engineering/how-much-code-do-i-have-a-devsecops-story).", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4512390, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-07 17:27:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-07 17:27:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 586004666, "note": "Thanks @bmiller1 the context is helpful.\n\nThis is in the %Backlog for awareness", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "7b778642e336114c9305738c7d29c4e4e85d3976", "created_at": "2021-05-26 22:16:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-26 22:16:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 409124927, "note": "@djensen - I settled on SCC, rather than the long standing CLOC (Perl) due to it being written in a modern language and, if the author was not able to add features, the hopes that someone at GitLab would.\n\nI did dive into the internals, but don't know enough about Go Lang nor Gitaly to comment on whether the two would tango well.\n\nIt is lightning fast - which I noticed when processing www-gitlab-com.\n\nHave you thought of this as a sidekiq process - not sure how good it would be at doing per-commit differentials in Gitaly and doing the full repo in Gitaly may be a lot of excess compute if it does it every commit?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-08 13:21:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 13:21:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 409309581, "note": "Just like source control, you don't need to count all the lines of code in a repo every time.\n\nOnce you have a known count of lines at a specific commit, you can just track the diffs after that to increase/decrease line count for specific code and languages.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2973161, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-08 17:58:50 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 17:58:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 409329832, "note": "Yes I understand.\nWhat I'm trying to indicate is that the machinations to isolate net new lines and net removed lines of code may be more processing load than simply scheduling scc weekly?  Especially given the speed of scc.\n\nIf that might be true, the question is how timely do line counts need to be?\n\nI don't know the answer - just highlighting that if line counts don't need to be up to the minute, there might be a cheaper way to do it.  It would also possibly allow direct dependency on scc, rather than forking it.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-08 18:33:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 18:33:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 409366938, "note": "> It is lightning fast\n\nYes it is!  It crunches the entire gitlab repo in about 3 seconds on my machine ([results here](https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/2013041)).  Not bad.\n\n> how timely do line counts need to be?  I don't know the answer\n\nMe either, but let's guess it needs to be somewhere between monthly and daily.  (Hourly and commitly seem unnecessarily specific.)  Maybe we could start at monthly and see how it goes?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4512390, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-08 20:08:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 20:08:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 409381230, "note": "Or, maybe proponents could weigh in on the frequency.\n\nI feel a compromise might be:\n\n * maintain a _count per branch_ (which could be very helpful anyway)\n * trigger a count on the _first commit_ of any new branch (or make counting an option?)\n * update all branch counts _monthly_ (or, only branches that have a flag indicating that they should be counted)\n\nThat way, the regular update frequency is down to one count per project branch, per month, and Developers can force a new count by pushing a new branch (perhaps they might have a special case to have up-to-the-commit counts).", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5791080, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-08 20:50:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 20:54:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 5791080, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "{}", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 410590466, "note": "In addition, I would like to understand uses cases for getting as fine as \"per branch\" code counts - what would someone use this for and how often?  If it is very occasional and/or for a bespoke purpose, they could just run scc themselves on a local copy.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-10 14:09:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-10 14:09:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 416263002, "note": "Starter customer requesting this feature in https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/172665", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "f820fe272fadfd61eb4c19317bb2d45f71f25fa4", "created_at": "2020-09-21 22:56:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-21 22:56:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 288529601, "note": "> Second, I would love to see some *absolute* data (number of files, lines, bytes).\n\nAs the description states, the goal is to understand what the bar means, and see some absolute data. @jeremy Would the MVC here be to simply report the number of bytes, since that's what we're measuring?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 424775, "discussion_id": "ccc8a3b61fc8f4f779b6b63486fb31d54c005cc9", "created_at": "2020-02-14 16:16:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-14 16:16:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 483620034, "note": "[OneDev](https://github.com/theonedev/onedev) calculates SLOC per languages and display the trends over time which is quite interesting. An example trends here:\n\nhttps://code.onedev.io/projects/react/stats/lines\n\nOne can hover mouse on the trend to show SLOC by day. The initial calculation for a large repo such as Linux takes about 30 min, and the result will be cached. Subsequent updates for new commits will be fairly fast based on cache. Below is the logic for calculation if someone is interested:\n\nhttps://github.com/theonedev/onedev/blob/main/server-core/src/main/java/io/onedev/server/infomanager/DefaultCommitInfoManager.java", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 7978344, "discussion_id": "19fa4567d0d0f1d5842c5ba6beae8267aebb0a4e", "created_at": "2021-01-12 14:30:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-01-12 14:30:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 242549553, "note": "This is moving back to the %Backlog for the reasons described in ZJ's [comment above](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/17800#note_214979038). We're absolutely accepting merge requests on this one, but the Manage stage needs to prioritize other areas at the moment.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1086520, "discussion_id": "cd32244cb8a10270e97506088fe7772e17dbcf11", "created_at": "2019-11-11 01:18:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-11-11 01:18:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 503471910, "note": "@markglenfletcher please fix this ASAP.\nI am surprised Gitlab has no protection against this crap.\nYou will end up with people massively unsubscribing at best.\n\nP.S. This idiot keeps recreating accounts.\nA simple post factum ban will not work.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "0d54912a045e3ea6508b3cf9ea3c8d3f2c3f3784", "created_at": "2021-02-07 18:22:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-21 12:57:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 920678, "type": null, "position": "{}", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 503473194, "note": "There is a certain lag.\nI suggest we do not subscribe back until admins fix it.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "9ac29bf1412056de52f720f228ad964e771a99b0", "created_at": "2021-02-07 18:26:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-02-07 18:26:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 579827345, "note": "@sarahwaldner I actually think this should go to ~\"group::source code\" , WDYT?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4156460, "discussion_id": "d00c9db46ebdfd5c4e66de6787876ca8748fad60", "created_at": "2021-05-19 16:42:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 16:42:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 587249173, "note": "@sarahwaldner FYI - Since Apex code is essentially extended Java with a few accompanying .xml metadata files, my customer was able to run `scc \u2013count-as cls:java` to interpret Apex .cls files as Java.  scc understands the comment and syntax structure of Java and was able to correctly return the LOC.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5213201, "discussion_id": "7b778642e336114c9305738c7d29c4e4e85d3976", "created_at": "2021-05-27 21:51:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-27 21:51:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 580171017, "note": "I think that makes a lot of sense @ogolowinski", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4447217, "discussion_id": "d00c9db46ebdfd5c4e66de6787876ca8748fad60", "created_at": "2021-05-19 19:34:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 19:34:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 580236144, "note": "@ogolowinski Yep, I agree. Thanks for changing the group.\n\nThis is going to remain in the backlog as it is not our current focus and based on [details](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/17800#details) in the description, LOE will be quite high. Thanks.\n\ncc @cupini", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "d00c9db46ebdfd5c4e66de6787876ca8748fad60", "created_at": "2021-05-19 20:16:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 20:16:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 562100410, "note": "@cupini I'm tagging @ljlane who is the PM for ~\"group::optimize\"", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4376883, "discussion_id": "d00c9db46ebdfd5c4e66de6787876ca8748fad60", "created_at": "2021-04-28 00:09:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-04-28 00:09:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 562089576, "note": "A ~\"GitLab Premium\" ~\"self-managed\" ~customer is interested in this feature.\n\n* Link to request:  https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100001Eo1h0\n* Why interested: Want to report on all repos (instance-level) for languages used in repos for tools info\n* Current solution for this problem: Have to scrape every project to get languages used but not per-lines\n* Impact to the customer of not having this: Workarounds are nice but would be nice to get an instance-view instantly \n* PM to mention: @stkerr", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3288671, "discussion_id": "d00c9db46ebdfd5c4e66de6787876ca8748fad60", "created_at": "2021-04-27 23:22:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-04-28 00:09:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 581438360, "note": "An Ultimate customer is interested in this feature.\n* Link to request: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/00161000014HWYo\n* Why interested: They have a need to report LoC for their Apex repos.\n* Current solution for this problem: Have to scrape every project to get languages used but not per-lines\n* Impact to the customer of not having this: We have not found an adequate workaround\n* PM to mention: @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5213201, "discussion_id": "7b778642e336114c9305738c7d29c4e4e85d3976", "created_at": "2021-05-20 21:51:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-26 22:16:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 622513819, "note": "Another Premium customer is interested in this feature: [#223248](https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/223248)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 7272738, "discussion_id": "3e8ddc8cdcb1c801921ec5c22320c15c418b8826", "created_at": "2021-07-09 11:30:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-09 11:30:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 364390361, "note": "Another customer inquiring if this function exists\nhttps://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/161342", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5791080, "discussion_id": "fe28d2e0f29b158bfc492b79ea8883a16e1d5fb7", "created_at": "2020-06-19 09:50:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-06-19 09:50:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 706872228, "note": "Another ~\"GitLab Premium\" Customer  interested in this feature [Internal Link](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0014M00001kHlpn)\n\ncc/ @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5250128, "discussion_id": "3f6ffdb391745aec7053e4585f952953cbf32152", "created_at": "2021-10-18 19:30:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-02 16:09:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 364645655, "note": "Ultimate customer here: we compile this data periodically for use by the C-suite and even if the absolute numbers are representative of byte counts it is easy enough for me to use an estimate of bytes per line to get what I need.\n\nThe key is that I have nothing without absolute numbers.\n\nAlso, please consider the non-gitlab.com use case. Perhaps on our hosted instance we would be able to opt-in to a feature like this if it were available and we can decide for ourselves if the performance is acceptable.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2973161, "discussion_id": "78631ce204289b27d0730dbec72b8b9a7f770fec", "created_at": "2020-06-19 15:58:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-06-19 15:58:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 721314226, "note": "My company is a Premium customer - we would really like to have this and even more metrics regarding type of language like number of components, files, etc.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5291964, "discussion_id": "3790f9053863d8b679f99d4cc896f3ffb8c450e7", "created_at": "2021-11-02 16:11:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-02 16:11:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 791792997, "note": "- SF: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000Ut0JyAAJ\n- ZD: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/254826\n\n~\"GitLab Ultimate\" customer is interested in this feature.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5537005, "discussion_id": "af4170834a554c4135225876e22c91fadd8c35f2", "created_at": "2021-12-21 18:42:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-21 18:42:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 990978163, "note": "1900 seat ~\"GitLab Ultimate\" [Customer](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/00161000002xBZQ) is interested in this feature.\n\n- Priority: ~\"customer priority::5\"  priority::\n- Why interested: Customer is trying to find a way to report the total line of code across all GitLab projects.\n- Problem they are trying to solve: Customer has some internal teams who are trying trying to integrate tooling with GitLab to measure and track code coverage. There\u2019s a cost associated with expanding those other tools and without the ability to report the number of lines it's nearly impossible to estimate said cost.\n- Current solution for this problem: none\n- Impact to the customer of not having this: Inability to utilize other tools in conjunction with GitLab and thus slowing adoption of the platform.\n- Questions: Are they're any other workarounds for this, even at a manual reporting level? \n- PM to mention: @tlinz", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4748523, "discussion_id": "e76285e7c35cbca1481c16ed2c1ad5b7d232b65e", "created_at": "2022-06-14 14:49:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-15 13:33:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 924067966, "note": "A Premium customer is interested in this feature.\n\nZD: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/284853\n\nThe workaround mentioned [here](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/17800#note_332427265) unfortunately is hitting this error at the moment. I wonder if you have thoughts about this @lyle ?\n\n```\nTraceback (most recent call last):\n3: from (irb):3\n2: from lib/gitlab/git/repository.rb:85:in `path'\n1: from lib/gitlab/gitaly_client/storage_settings.rb:65:in `legacy_disk_path'\nGitlab::GitalyClient::StorageSettings::DirectPathAccessError (git disk access denied)\n```", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10051186, "discussion_id": "b8e3e33f1b90b1555829b03d1de3c683ce05edcf", "created_at": "2022-04-26 08:09:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-26 22:56:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 925281183, "note": "Seems related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/350080. This was always a bit of a hack, and relied on manually executing `git` commands directly on the repo.\n\nYou could take (and modify) the same core:\n\n`/opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} ls-tree --full-tree -r HEAD --name-only | xargs -I '$' /opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} show master:$ | wc -l` and run it directly on the command line given a list of paths generated from `rails`\n\nThere's a bunch of caveats there though:\n- `master` is not necessarily the default branch name (we transitioned in GitLab to `main` some time ago)\n- It relies on counting the actual number of lines in a file `wc -l` and does it for every file in a repo. This will include licenses, headers, empty space and so on.\n\nThere are some additional thoughts in https://gist.github.com/mandiwise/dc53cb9da00856d7cdbb that have iterated on my approach from two years ago :sweat:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "b8e3e33f1b90b1555829b03d1de3c683ce05edcf", "created_at": "2022-04-26 22:56:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-26 22:56:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 601066055, "note": "Thanks @bgadberry \n\nIt seems like with the additional customer problem you need solved that there should be another issue for this...?\n\n> Customer would like to calculate vulnerabilities per number of lines of code in order to measure issue/vulnerability density.\n\nThis does not seem directly related. Correct me if I am wrong!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "b23826cc32a2ebd6b91f56e4471b7bfef9e87ff6", "created_at": "2021-06-14 21:56:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 21:56:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 601093808, "note": "@sarahwaldner You're correct. I was thinking the customer could calculate the metric manually once number of lines of code is made available. On second thought, I think we can calculate vulnerabilities per byte today. I'll report back if that suffices.\n\n@tmccaslin Is this vulnerability per byte/line of code metric something we've considered uncovering as part of SAST?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "b23826cc32a2ebd6b91f56e4471b7bfef9e87ff6", "created_at": "2021-06-14 23:07:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 23:07:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 332427265, "note": "It's not per _language_ but the following rails console snippet will give you an estimate of number of lines per `Project` on a self-managed instance where the `git-data` is on a partition or directly attached volume.\n\nIt can break a bit if there's no `master` branch or if a repository for some reason doesn't have a `HEAD`, so it's not at all bullet-proof.\n\n```ruby\nheaders = ['path', 'lines','archived?']\nreport_file = Tempfile.new(['project_lines','.csv'])\n\nCSV.open(report_file.path, \"wb\") do |csv|\ncsv << headers\n   Project.all.each do |p|\n      output = `/opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} ls-tree --full-tree -r HEAD --name-only | xargs -I '$' /opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} show master:$ | wc -l`\n      csv << [p.full_path, Integer(output),p.archived?]\n   end; nil\nend\n\nreport_file.close\n```", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "2930750323d45742084b921bd0f102d58807df7b", "created_at": "2020-04-27 23:51:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-04-27 23:51:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 786106, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 951334872, "note": "Yes, statistics counting total and per lang number of lines (in code files only) would be so nice and basic.  \nIgnore empty lines for me is optional. \n\nGet stats manually / locally for a git repo is not a problem. But this issue asks for the UI of gitlab. And this is what I need as well. \n\nhere a link to the current state: (older links above are expired)  \nhttps://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/graphs/master/charts \n\nHere a link for more advanced stats ambitions:  \nhttps://www.openhub.net/p/gitlab\n\nedit: btw: If this is not happening since 5 years because of performance issues, then just calculate it once a week and show the calculation date next to it. I guess most people do not need per hour stats about n lines of code. For me even once per month would be enough. (And thus could be used for #12104 as well)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 882141, "discussion_id": "3bdba5e20eedfcedc7eb1c6272fa93798b138610", "created_at": "2022-05-18 14:08:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-03 07:59:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 882141, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-05-18 14:13:37 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978971, "note": "In order to get this request some attention, this issue has been marked as a potentially interesting proposal as it meets the following criteria:\n\n* Labelled as a feature proposal\n* More than 10 upvotes\n* Unscheduled (not associated with a milestone)\n\nThanks for your proposal!\n\n\n\n/cc @markglenfletcher", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "73b69edb26083c702d2514effe76ca7da2d40407", "created_at": "2017-11-18 04:31:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-18 04:31:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979021, "note": "+1", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 154953, "discussion_id": "63b6ff0026abcb2ee9df9b28041655c7ab9fe563", "created_at": "2018-11-12 09:25:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-12 09:25:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979010, "note": "@billclark agreed", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2414870, "discussion_id": "1328954e3c5076176230b846b4da51543092429b", "created_at": "2018-08-08 02:28:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-08 02:28:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979062, "note": "If you do, make sure you somehow transfer the popularity and influence as well. \nThis issue has 2 years of (possible sparse) history and 300+ upvotes. \nThe newer one is month long. \n\nIt may make more sense to either transfer this one to EE, or merge the other one to here.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "5db704a8ce0f10d43344ec9d98767153458c3c76", "created_at": "2019-07-03 11:52:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 11:52:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979040, "note": "this just counts the raw line number of the files treated as pieces of texts. I guess what people want here is more like a per-language breakdown.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2438931, "discussion_id": "e32505249798e1b3e040ded861516658150259c6", "created_at": "2019-03-06 18:07:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-03-06 18:07:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979017, "note": "Is there a way to get this data using the API?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1861874, "discussion_id": "0603dc2249187fa36328ff2f92debfc6c7db79d1", "created_at": "2018-08-14 11:06:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-14 11:06:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 601097241, "note": "No it is not. That would be something for @matt_wilson to consider with the security dashboard.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5329074, "discussion_id": "b23826cc32a2ebd6b91f56e4471b7bfef9e87ff6", "created_at": "2021-06-14 23:16:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 23:16:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979007, "note": "We need more cowbell!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 196721, "discussion_id": "616b443b97ad1443c199fb5f0af9780b51ddf379", "created_at": "2018-08-07 19:16:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-07 19:16:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 951315993, "note": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/graphs/master/charts is that what it looks today? seems like a regression.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 882141, "discussion_id": "a4b97198d010ed7e95fc262d1f29035f71961eda", "created_at": "2022-05-18 13:57:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-05-18 13:57:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979036, "note": "I would like a total number of lines not including blank ones.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 102482, "discussion_id": "dcb61a50851d774190fa590cddf3e19f7a753f83", "created_at": "2018-12-28 07:42:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-12-28 07:42:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 404096482, "note": "Customer would also like to track lines of code per developer.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "eb54564d4654374ae63e8eb52527601014481efb", "created_at": "2020-08-28 21:23:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-08-28 21:23:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979033, "note": "Just started to use gitlab, and this is one the first stats i hoped to see in the \"Charts\", however i was surprised it's missing :(", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3219145, "discussion_id": "71485494f03eb4e76252e3beb5826bac74fa3c15", "created_at": "2018-12-22 10:59:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-06-10 15:03:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 503471203, "note": "how come I can still receive notifications even if I unsubscribed???", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2438931, "discussion_id": "9ac29bf1412056de52f720f228ad964e771a99b0", "created_at": "2021-02-07 18:19:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-02-07 18:26:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 387929331, "note": "Ultimate customer requesting this feature: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100001FRuq0\n\nCustomer would like to see number of lines of code per language excluding comments. \n\n/cc @npost", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "eb54564d4654374ae63e8eb52527601014481efb", "created_at": "2020-07-30 01:30:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-03-30 20:47:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 258382372, "note": "Customer interested in this feature. https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000W2eBo (Internal link)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4587928, "discussion_id": "35a9711c22330d7480c21b516ab890edccb85fb6", "created_at": "2019-12-10 19:56:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-12-10 19:56:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979006, "note": "i will join, i want see my ego", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 688008, "discussion_id": "8993bd8d42c15974c7f1eee7b8601e71e505626f", "created_at": "2018-07-30 22:42:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-07-30 22:42:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 292139470, "note": "for a company that has thousands of repositories that's just completely ineffective", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "10fe6a459ec6c87e9ed31c7bbd1a8b595922945b", "created_at": "2020-02-21 09:13:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-21 09:13:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 601110834, "note": "@bgadberry The customer may be able to pull the necessary vulnerability count information from the existing GraphQL API. I've never heard a request for this functionality before and don't have any plans to include it in the Security Dashboard reports so pulling the data and creating their own reports is the best way forward if this is needed.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4708748, "discussion_id": "b23826cc32a2ebd6b91f56e4471b7bfef9e87ff6", "created_at": "2021-06-14 23:42:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 23:42:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214979054, "note": "Same here!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4122216, "discussion_id": "71485494f03eb4e76252e3beb5826bac74fa3c15", "created_at": "2019-06-10 15:03:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-06-10 15:03:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 404663419, "note": "The developer of scc responded to proposals to update the code as desired. Resultant code is in this blog article: https://acloudguru.com/blog/engineering/how-much-code-do-i-have-a-devsecops-story and being worked into this working example for GitLab CI CD: https://gitlab.com/guided-explorations/ci-cd-plugin-extensions/ci-cd-plugin-extension-scc", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-08-31 13:21:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-08-31 13:21:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 409398149, "note": "@mlockhart in the context of an MVC I think we need to stick with measuring the default branch only, because that's what the Repository Analytics page is currently doing ([example](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/graphs/master/charts)).\n\nOn the bright side, it seems the existing byte counts are being [updated on push](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/app/services/git/branch_push_service.rb#L54).  That makes me hopeful we could match that frequency with line counts.  So let's tentatively say the MVC would be updated pushly (instead of monthly like I proposed above).", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4512390, "discussion_id": "f22864d4a92ed8bfd0657092f53be6218713536c", "created_at": "2020-09-08 21:22:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 21:22:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 331168435, "note": "Gold customer requesting this feature: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/154631 with a slight twist: they'd like to see the number of lines by group/sub-group.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "3b5c50effe1ea33f7f938b5693032964c2bdc512", "created_at": "2020-04-24 18:02:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-29 19:37:04 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 786106, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-03-30 20:46:35 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 600990593, "note": "Ultimate customer requesting this feature: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0014M00001lc3Cc\n\nCustomer would like to calculate vulnerabilities per number of lines of code in order to measure issue/vulnerability density. \n\n/cc @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "b23826cc32a2ebd6b91f56e4471b7bfef9e87ff6", "created_at": "2021-06-14 19:45:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 21:56:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978968, "note": "Had a similar request. I was able to get this info by extracting the Gitlab backup repositories from a backup and unbundling everything then running the following utility on the directory.\r\n\r\nBut it would be nice to see this kind of information on a project / server admin level, just to provide an overview of things currently within GitLab user / admin interfaces.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.npmjs.com/package/cloc\r\n\r\n![image](/uploads/2e9c9fd05358a6e80411bfb9b323c214/image.png)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 261290, "discussion_id": "186117b5b28df4eca7f2419b17ad900f90e61728", "created_at": "2017-08-03 18:15:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-22 12:20:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": 261290, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-03-30 20:42:31 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 214978960, "note": "Please add a chart with the SLOC metric, it is a metric more useful than the number of commits", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1276118, "discussion_id": "735fd7ef77d0bd7463126f7436eda8691d678998", "created_at": "2017-04-21 14:50:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-19 07:55:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 24652824, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1464603993, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125868 -->\n### Remove hard coded language: gitlab-org/gitlab!125868\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove hard coded language\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@eduardosanz please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6c334ad3278843eed2bf98eb9b7b666091147daf", "created_at": "2023-07-11 04:31:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 04:05:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-13 05:15:41 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1536524660, "note": "During review:\n\n- Looked good to me , no suggestions\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f0859f422798f0911f1d302381f3b7dc92f2a3e3", "created_at": "2023-08-31 05:12:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-31 05:12:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1525984745, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130137 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix epic board count update on add and reorder: gitlab-org/gitlab!130137\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix epic board count update on add and reorder\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f0859f422798f0911f1d302381f3b7dc92f2a3e3", "created_at": "2023-08-24 06:31:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-31 05:12:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-28 06:31:07 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1608130962, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134349 -->\n### Apollo boards - Migrate card multi select to apollo: gitlab-org/gitlab!134349\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Migrate card multi select to apollo\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "ad0fef742d45c5008c793f75979365880c402acb", "created_at": "2023-10-18 06:31:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 06:31:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-19 06:31:12 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1562772209, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127788 -->\n### Fixing problems with project overview: gitlab-org/gitlab!127788\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fixing problems with project overview\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@aturinske please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "4448836cdc3cdedd4976a9cd81d8b12ee9cf29bb", "created_at": "2023-09-18 06:30:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:39:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-22 06:31:15 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1563423640, "note": "Dependency updates are often \"waived through\". You took the time to understand what's going on and tried out the update locally :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 181229, "discussion_id": "6c0ed41092857db945ecad6b1398e1d8d37b41a5", "created_at": "2023-09-18 13:31:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 13:31:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1503796209, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to update the description of the MR ( not blocking )\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "80fb9fc2009c78be055fd46286880166c5d8d380", "created_at": "2023-08-08 05:05:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-08 05:05:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484670465, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127151 -->\n### Fix image_list_row_spec.js: gitlab-org/gitlab!127151\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix image_list_row_spec.js\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "80fb9fc2009c78be055fd46286880166c5d8d380", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:20:50 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-08 05:05:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-26 05:35:36 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1507118687, "note": "Sure ! Thank you @fguibert :bow:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "32833de9945b2a81a47c670ed0baec340de1de06", "created_at": "2023-08-10 04:20:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 04:20:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1466273491, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125939 -->\n### Add codeowners validation block: gitlab-org/gitlab!125939\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add codeowners validation block\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@jerasmus please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "b4deb31b91d08bedeb6d231d1b3de07dfa0a30f1", "created_at": "2023-07-12 06:15:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-28 06:31:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-28 06:31:21 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1463155402, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested a nitpick to put a repeatedly tested component to a variable \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "81c635bd618a931d3728effe87d49d87a6e8846a", "created_at": "2023-07-10 08:09:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-10 08:09:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1459656852, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125496 -->\n### Apollo boards - Add issue to Swimlanes: gitlab-org/gitlab!125496\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Add issue to Swimlanes\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "81c635bd618a931d3728effe87d49d87a6e8846a", "created_at": "2023-07-06 07:37:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-10 08:09:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-07 06:31:04 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1476547153, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125982 -->\n### Fixes container registry tags list sorting UI inconsistency: gitlab-org/gitlab!125982\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fixes container registry tags list sorting UI inconsistency\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@jivanvl please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f32b176e44c8c85d053beecdcaa3adda46362829", "created_at": "2023-07-19 11:07:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 05:05:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-25 05:05:24 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1479325916, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to \n     - to follow frontend dev guidelines for exported constants\n     - not duplicate issue list queries right now but move everything to shared in the next iteration , making the cleanup more efficient\n     - refactor the jest specs to follow the naming conventions, remove unwanted code and add a couple of extra tests - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/125877#note_1475901603 \n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: The maintainer added a non-blocking suggestion to add more test coverage\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina @tristan.read in please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0e9d9de9d32a851377c3f68ecebaa49cbf25863f", "created_at": "2023-07-20 10:21:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-20 10:21:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1457393023, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125255 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix filtering and scope: gitlab-org/gitlab!125255\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix filtering and scope\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "616479cbc527f2a11ec6896e8c7c7bef049ff499", "created_at": "2023-07-05 03:56:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-10 08:13:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-05 15:12:27 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1528942055, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130145 -->\n### Add infinite scroll to source_branch_dropdown.vue: gitlab-org/gitlab!130145\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add infinite scroll to source_branch_dropdown.vue\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@pslaughter please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "4ba705c0455a37a6bdf3b1cea4d9624e5453c39c", "created_at": "2023-08-25 06:31:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-16 06:31:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-16 06:31:18 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1489916587, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested not to use hidden elements in code but since it was not a scope of the MR , left it as unblocking comment.\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed \n      - not to use name with component when it is already used in hidden element\n      - edit the test-id naming convention , was using `js-` naming convention\n\n@pslaughter please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0d33de5ef8a1b478cf3a375b39a6f09a9f8472ba", "created_at": "2023-07-27 06:52:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-27 06:52:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1456445812, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!121585 -->\n### Remove usages of emails_disabled in favor of emails_enabled for Projects: gitlab-org/gitlab!121585\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove usages of emails_disabled in favor of emails_enabled for Projects\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@terrichu please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0d33de5ef8a1b478cf3a375b39a6f09a9f8472ba", "created_at": "2023-07-04 10:41:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-27 06:52:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-27 04:53:07 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1593896320, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!132467 -->\n### Removes direct data manipulation from discussion_filter_spec: gitlab-org/gitlab!132467\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fc3f4f17352251bc002c8612d6b82abd0d053d14", "created_at": "2023-10-07 06:30:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-07 06:30:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1608131042, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!133725 -->\n### Basic group multiselect support for user token: gitlab-org/gitlab!133725\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Basic group multiselect support for user token\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "3e7fa81abfa9f541daf659dea19009afbab49a12", "created_at": "2023-10-18 06:31:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-24 06:31:27 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-24 06:31:27 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1524201744, "note": "During review:\n\n- It was a small clean change , nothing to suggest\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "53c898d1879cdd10cde5f75da8b00081301d2701", "created_at": "2023-08-23 08:23:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 08:23:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1539521470, "note": "Thanks for encouraging the MR author to use robust testing assertions. Great review!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3540517, "discussion_id": "c5729dd9f06b5c4d7c5bcd920a0572562bfe2083", "created_at": "2023-09-01 14:24:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-01 14:24:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1524216788, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n   - to use kebab case for `data-testid` selectors\n   - use `toMatchObect` in tests\n   - use `toBe` for primitive values testing\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed some non blocking suggestions on comment rephrasing and changing tests description\n\n@jannik_lehmann please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fcdd30ff934560dab054c3490c24984cf6aa97c7", "created_at": "2023-08-23 08:29:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 08:29:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484670454, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127240 -->\n### Improve Value stream dashboard loading state: gitlab-org/gitlab!127240\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Improve Value stream dashboard loading state\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@jannik_lehmann please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fcdd30ff934560dab054c3490c24984cf6aa97c7", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:20:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 08:29:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-01 06:31:21 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1524230146, "note": "During review:\n\nI took it in half review from @jrushford as he was going on PTO\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n   - some changes to use computed classes on the element in a readable way\n   - not to use `data-qa-selector` as per guidelines\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@leipert was generous to take it up and complete the review :bow: \n\nCan you please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review ? Thank you :thank_you:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "bbc9db73c97c0b399009e0d7bb840703ab4a4641", "created_at": "2023-08-23 08:37:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 08:37:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1541007009, "note": "Sure thank you so much @pburdette :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "cd782183f37f73a8fff9e0ace53ef47ca1473405", "created_at": "2023-09-04 03:33:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-04 03:33:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1463179030, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: \n    - to add Sentry logging for error scenarios\n    - creating a helper function to set the data properties and write specs for it for changes made in haml file \n    - to use `$emit` instead of `trigger` for testing an emitted event for component \n- :mag: I identified to prevent failing tests in vue3 compat mode\n    - an extra use of `nextTick`\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "24b37342a9755f9f79952a6a15c7bc3098f0db63", "created_at": "2023-07-10 08:25:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-10 08:25:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1508849365, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!129052 -->\n### Make documentation and UI consistent for units of measure: gitlab-org/gitlab!129052\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Make documentation and UI consistent for units of measure\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@dianalogan please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "86bc625b2e896a5c7ae1c21be7483ad6ce374aa8", "created_at": "2023-08-11 06:14:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-21 06:31:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-21 06:31:38 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1539565882, "note": "Keep an eye out for missing test coverage. Especially when the MR deals with fixing a bug. We want to make sure it has good test coverage so the bug isn't introduced again. \n\nOverall good review :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4477803, "discussion_id": "cd782183f37f73a8fff9e0ace53ef47ca1473405", "created_at": "2023-09-01 14:53:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-01 14:53:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1568899677, "note": "Thank you @leipert :bow:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6c0ed41092857db945ecad6b1398e1d8d37b41a5", "created_at": "2023-09-21 08:45:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-21 08:45:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1568898395, "note": "Thank you for the feedback @f_caplette :bow:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "64fb870f7f1010c2d66423b0f396daba6c28308b", "created_at": "2023-09-21 08:44:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-21 08:44:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1457667075, "note": "During review:\n\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted to use $emit rather than $trigger but since the wrapper was native html element , trigger made more sense \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2b0f83ec1db7bb3d5ef606836cadb99c7d0c31a0", "created_at": "2023-07-05 08:32:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-05 08:32:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1456369541, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125181 -->\n### Removes direct data manipulation from upload_dropzone_spec: gitlab-org/gitlab!125181\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Removes direct data manipulation from upload_dropzone_spec\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2b0f83ec1db7bb3d5ef606836cadb99c7d0c31a0", "created_at": "2023-07-04 09:52:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-05 08:32:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-05 03:56:32 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1456445751, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!124783 -->\n### Hook up update schedule mutation: gitlab-org/gitlab!124783\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Hook up update schedule mutation\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@alberts-gitlab please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "24b37342a9755f9f79952a6a15c7bc3098f0db63", "created_at": "2023-07-04 10:41:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-10 08:25:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-07 06:31:11 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1463161255, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to add tests in `board_card_inner_spec.js`  but they will be added when rspecs are written for the same in future\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed asking why we prefer `eventHub` still\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "616479cbc527f2a11ec6896e8c7c7bef049ff499", "created_at": "2023-07-10 08:13:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-10 08:13:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1459656907, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125479 -->\n### Dismiss modal after increasing access level: gitlab-org/gitlab!125479\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Dismiss modal after increasing access level\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ddavison please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "78d149a4d1e5565f9e0e0ba3eeb0c58ed67cd793", "created_at": "2023-07-06 07:37:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:54:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-11 04:31:53 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1464603980, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125947 -->\n### Fix wrapping pattern of buttons: gitlab-org/gitlab!125947\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix wrapping pattern of buttons\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@leipert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "dfacb5916b8e2c0edf88ff97d41ea9961e5bf49d", "created_at": "2023-07-11 04:31:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 04:03:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-15 06:31:09 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1465234546, "note": "@deepika.guliani Good suggestions and questions, not much else to comment on regarding this MR. Keep it up :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4545397, "discussion_id": "24b37342a9755f9f79952a6a15c7bc3098f0db63", "created_at": "2023-07-11 12:15:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-11 12:15:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1466273454, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125971 -->\n### Mark vulnerability_details component as deprecated: gitlab-org/gitlab!125971\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "85d4a1316a06e5c11f902081a5bc9507930a634f", "created_at": "2023-07-12 06:14:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-12 06:14:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484698139, "note": "Thank you for the feedback @leipert :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "dfacb5916b8e2c0edf88ff97d41ea9961e5bf49d", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:40:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:40:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484705445, "note": "During review:\n\n- A very small and clean MR to remove an existing FF, no feedback as such\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@mwoolf please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "882188a8cf205ceaf89b5a8ba059b59247d81ef0", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:45:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:45:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1473663483, "note": "During review:\n\n- :mag: I identified that the dropdown is closing when we click the copy button which is different from the original behaviour\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@pgascouvaillancourt please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "7d0006beefacc717d0cd5a979a97b7b3e36a69ed", "created_at": "2023-07-18 02:55:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-18 02:55:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1473664730, "note": "During review:\n\nLooked good to be since a helper method was added. Passed on to the maintainer\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed pointing out to write test for the helper method in both the ee and ce version\n\n@mrincon please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "db63c86c5e6ce7ec79dcd29994bb0d24fc5c0681", "created_at": "2023-07-18 02:58:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-18 02:58:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1466273525, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!123522 -->\n### Implement search for group wikis: gitlab-org/gitlab!123522\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Implement search for group wikis\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@johnmason please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "db63c86c5e6ce7ec79dcd29994bb0d24fc5c0681", "created_at": "2023-07-12 06:15:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-18 15:38:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-13 05:15:36 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1466273408, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125980 -->\n### Migrate runner registration dropdown to disclosure: gitlab-org/gitlab!125980\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Migrate runner registration dropdown to disclosure\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@pgascouvaillancourt please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "7d0006beefacc717d0cd5a979a97b7b3e36a69ed", "created_at": "2023-07-12 06:14:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-18 02:55:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-15 06:31:06 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1470936880, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!123019 -->\n### Resolve \"Implement issue preview in a drawer on issue list page\": gitlab-org/gitlab!123019\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Resolve \"Implement issue preview in a drawer on issue list page\"\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2a2d677da041cd138384060961fb4ec928774e0e", "created_at": "2023-07-15 06:31:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 07:31:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 04:12:41 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471435298, "note": "Did not review this.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5baaee1f1613678faed23c040b80922d59232b3d", "created_at": "2023-07-17 03:42:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:42:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1456445781, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!124533 -->\n### Migrate \"pipelines_artifacts\" to GlDisclosure: gitlab-org/gitlab!124533\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Migrate \"pipelines_artifacts\" to GlDisclosure\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5baaee1f1613678faed23c040b80922d59232b3d", "created_at": "2023-07-04 10:41:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:42:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-13 05:15:50 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471437751, "note": "\nDuring review:\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n     1. To apply the new eslint rule files where it was used rather than disabling it\n\nPost review:\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f3d373d2cc95e02e1fb9dc3c1daf4fdb41373be0", "created_at": "2023-07-17 03:50:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:50:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1457393034, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125196 -->\n### Add no hard coded url eslint rules: gitlab-org/gitlab!125196\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add no hard coded url eslint rules\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f3d373d2cc95e02e1fb9dc3c1daf4fdb41373be0", "created_at": "2023-07-05 03:56:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:50:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-13 05:15:45 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471438997, "note": "\nDuring review:\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted that it was a small MR with data attribute changes for selection , approved it as is without any feedback\n\nPost review:\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is \n\n@ddavison @justin_ho please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "78d149a4d1e5565f9e0e0ba3eeb0c58ed67cd793", "created_at": "2023-07-17 03:54:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:54:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471440135, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to add a jest test case when the dataset property `cannot-merge` property is not provided\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fb87671b5a7260becdc717888495c669b421511c", "created_at": "2023-07-17 03:57:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:57:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1462960557, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125555 -->\n### Show user popover for assignees/reviewers in MR sidebar: gitlab-org/gitlab!125555\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Show user popover for assignees/reviewers in MR sidebar\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fb87671b5a7260becdc717888495c669b421511c", "created_at": "2023-07-10 05:33:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 03:57:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-10 10:06:57 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1462960568, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125509 -->\n### Reorder head tags to optimize rendering performance: gitlab-org/gitlab!125509\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Reorder head tags to optimize rendering performance\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@afontaine please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "54b8e36b97267c4183f76812cadb115a707003ac", "created_at": "2023-07-10 05:33:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 04:00:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-12 06:15:08 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471441009, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to add the changes behind a FF just to be sure since this was a change in the head tags and we could not see any potential differences in local gdk and .com\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is **but the maintainer agreed that an FF would be good**\n\n@afontaine please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "54b8e36b97267c4183f76812cadb115a707003ac", "created_at": "2023-07-17 04:00:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 10:06:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-17 10:06:33 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471442069, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested using utility classes at multiple css file changes to reduce the css page bundle size\n\nIt was a great improvement to see the final changes made only to the template file\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@leipert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "dfacb5916b8e2c0edf88ff97d41ea9961e5bf49d", "created_at": "2023-07-17 04:03:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 11:48:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471443156, "note": "During review:\n\n- Nothing to suggest , it was a small ~frontend change adding a language attribute to html. Looked good :white_check_mark: \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@eduardosanz @psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6c334ad3278843eed2bf98eb9b7b666091147daf", "created_at": "2023-07-17 04:05:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 04:05:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471448970, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested\n    - to use computed properties and constants\n    - to remove redundant code like - `v-if` and `v-show` should never be together\n    - to remove console logs \n    - not to use computed property for constants\n    - move i18n texts to options of the component\n    - add a finally for isloading to false irrespective of error or not\n    - remove redundant `v-else-if` which was not needed\n    - move multiple `findComponent` in test cases as a variable\n    - [use findComponent as component rather than name](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/125572#note_1469331672)\n    - Use emit instead of trigger for gitlab-ui components in [jest test cases](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/125572#note_1469331686)\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed \n     - redundant null check in `v-else`\n     - passing reload as a function instead of emit \n     - string extrapolation not need\n\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "53cff2a6070a187d131e2645366337d3d687ed1d", "created_at": "2023-07-17 04:19:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 04:19:57 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1467872137, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125572 -->\n### Add Tracing List UI: gitlab-org/gitlab!125572\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add Tracing List UI\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@aturinske please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "53cff2a6070a187d131e2645366337d3d687ed1d", "created_at": "2023-07-13 06:31:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 04:19:57 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-15 06:31:03 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471841737, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126578 -->\n### [issue-417870] Migrate button component to Pajamas Button: gitlab-org/gitlab!126578\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "da94499aad2ea3f497f66f74e02dec6b36dc850b", "created_at": "2023-07-17 09:57:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 09:57:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1472031566, "note": "@deepika.guliani This isn't one of the largest MRs, but thanks for the promotion of utility classes over custom CSS :thumbsup: and the nice and respectful interaction with a community contributor.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 181229, "discussion_id": "dfacb5916b8e2c0edf88ff97d41ea9961e5bf49d", "created_at": "2023-07-17 11:50:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 11:50:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1472314143, "note": "This particular MR was a merge as-is MR thus, did not have any requests for change.\n\nFor maintainership, the MRs we are looking for are the more thoughtful technical design decisions and engineering considerations.  Regretfully, I cannot fairly grade your maintainership competency based on this MR.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 272636, "discussion_id": "78d149a4d1e5565f9e0e0ba3eeb0c58ed67cd793", "created_at": "2023-07-17 13:51:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 13:51:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1489813801, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127572 -->\n### Display a phased loading indicator to help alleviate long wait times: gitlab-org/gitlab!127572\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Display a phased loading indicator to help alleviate long wait times\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@dmishunov please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "3473fc8ed41c758a8384a85eb86d04bca942249f", "created_at": "2023-07-27 04:52:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-02 06:31:20 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-02 06:31:19 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1474957631, "note": "Frontend code didn't require changes so the review was :100:, what I'd expect from a frontend maintainer.\n\n-------\n\nI often read the entire MR to learn more about our codebase. I may ask for changes if I notice something in the backend, documentation, etc...\n\nI'd encourage \"holistic\" reviews and be ready to comment or ask about any part of the MR.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 1607849, "discussion_id": "db63c86c5e6ce7ec79dcd29994bb0d24fc5c0681", "created_at": "2023-07-18 15:37:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-18 15:38:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 1607849, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-18 15:38:09 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1478620562, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127036 -->\n### Prevent loading state from showing after undo: gitlab-org/gitlab!127036\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "9a4cc70bcb0665ed6a9165b00626054c290aaa69", "created_at": "2023-07-20 03:59:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-20 03:59:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1475870222, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n    - to remove the isSingleRequest for emojiQueries since they would not have large requests\n    - some UI text changes for proper error description\n    - unnecessary if condition in code\n    - Show loader when the emojis are being fetched to show an indicator that a query is being run\n    - remove not need cache.writeQuery in tests, should work fine with proper request handlers\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed checking that the query is called everytime we update any work item attribute\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "98866b264c4f289a615a192d8886d1d457482815", "created_at": "2023-07-19 04:16:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-19 04:16:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1464604003, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125121 -->\n### Support pagination when loading award emojis in work items: gitlab-org/gitlab!125121\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Support pagination when loading award emojis in work items\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "98866b264c4f289a615a192d8886d1d457482815", "created_at": "2023-07-11 04:31:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-19 04:16:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-19 03:41:11 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1476547126, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126709 -->\n### Display labels description and scoped labels for epics on roadmap: gitlab-org/gitlab!126709\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Display labels description and scoped labels for epics on roadmap\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6d5c2baa6160801eeca89c45cea104585b3d2467", "created_at": "2023-07-19 11:07:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:52:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-22 06:31:32 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1471137287, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125877 -->\n### Declare search tokens for CE Service Desk list: gitlab-org/gitlab!125877\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Declare search tokens for CE Service Desk list\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0e9d9de9d32a851377c3f68ecebaa49cbf25863f", "created_at": "2023-07-16 06:31:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-20 10:21:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-20 09:53:43 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1480510293, "note": "@deepika.guliani My suggestion about the specs came from specific domain knowledge about Incidents, so I wouldn't worry about that.\n\nYour review was detailed and what I would expect from a maintainer :thumbsup_tone1:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3146670, "discussion_id": "0e9d9de9d32a851377c3f68ecebaa49cbf25863f", "created_at": "2023-07-21 01:59:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 01:59:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1478620592, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127014 -->\n### Remove import_details_page feature flag: gitlab-org/gitlab!127014\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove import_details_page feature flag\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@mwoolf please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "882188a8cf205ceaf89b5a8ba059b59247d81ef0", "created_at": "2023-07-20 03:59:34 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:45:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 04:12:36 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1480581161, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!124322 -->\n### Replace qa selector with data-testid for release tests: gitlab-org/gitlab!124322\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Replace qa selector with data-testid for release tests\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c2301d3f87593c5d28d3ce7b7f41c94efb7c7565", "created_at": "2023-07-21 04:12:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:43:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 08:38:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1594726639, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!133508 -->\n### Project overview Edit button fix: gitlab-org/gitlab!133508\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Project overview Edit button fix\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@dmishunov please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "e8dd22043f74a2b659825529463290378e4528c8", "created_at": "2023-10-09 06:31:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-10 06:31:16 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-10 06:31:15 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1488788165, "note": "@deepika.guliani This was a larger MR so it can be easier to miss some things. From this review:\n\n- Keep an eye out for code (string and number literals) that can be replaced with existing constants\n- For reusable/shared components, check that the code is generic and reusable by others\n- Generally, question every line of code to check whether it is unneeded or can be simplified", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4545397, "discussion_id": "2a2d677da041cd138384060961fb4ec928774e0e", "created_at": "2023-07-26 12:00:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 12:00:57 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484696992, "note": "Thank you for the feedback @tristan.read :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0e9d9de9d32a851377c3f68ecebaa49cbf25863f", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:39:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 02:03:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484697575, "note": "Thank you for the feedback @mrincon :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "db63c86c5e6ce7ec79dcd29994bb0d24fc5c0681", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:39:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:39:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484698964, "note": "sure , thank you @ddavison :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "78d149a4d1e5565f9e0e0ba3eeb0c58ed67cd793", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:40:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:40:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484699692, "note": "Thank you for the feedback @cngo :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "24b37342a9755f9f79952a6a15c7bc3098f0db63", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:41:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:41:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484703670, "note": "During review:\n\n- Small ~frontend changes to use `data-testid` instead of qa selector. Had no feedback\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c2301d3f87593c5d28d3ce7b7f41c94efb7c7565", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:43:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:43:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1569008648, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n  * to use `fluid-width` instead of `fluid-content`  for `gl-collapsible-listbox` props\n  * add an extra test for check for other props for the new dropdown\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6d6b5b1f7264489baab8067b4c0b04dcd715d991", "created_at": "2023-09-21 09:25:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-21 09:25:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1484715899, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested\n       - to change the naming for labelsContainer and labels in jest test cases\n       - having a test case to make sure that the injected data property `allowScopedLabels` is injected and also having a default value for the injected prop in the component\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6d5c2baa6160801eeca89c45cea104585b3d2467", "created_at": "2023-07-24 06:52:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 06:52:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1469343489, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126425 -->\n### Work item header and input UI improvements: gitlab-org/gitlab!126425\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Work item header and input UI improvements\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "ca025737166556c3e9fe4473d3960af8c75b13e7", "created_at": "2023-07-14 06:13:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 07:31:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-21 04:12:42 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484781979, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested\n     - (non-blocking)to use cache update instead of refetching the issue count when deleting the work item\n     - to remove unused graphql query \n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed \n     - to point using constants for work item types\n     - improve the logic when updating fields by updating the persisted_fields and returning early when no work item found\n     - use isActive is `issuable_item` to highlight selected item\n     - update the milestone in the FF file\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2a2d677da041cd138384060961fb4ec928774e0e", "created_at": "2023-07-24 07:31:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 07:31:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1484911410, "note": "Thank for you timely review!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11004366, "discussion_id": "6c334ad3278843eed2bf98eb9b7b666091147daf", "created_at": "2023-07-24 08:49:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 08:49:57 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1495053415, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!128081 -->\n### Fix bold font not being applied on viewed file after further changes. Add viewed file count to diff.: gitlab-org/gitlab!128081\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "be8bab870d9d7406215dcb7751daa1602a6c4d04", "created_at": "2023-08-01 09:42:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 09:42:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1494758897, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127937 -->\n### [issue-416939] Swap the secondary and primary buttons empty states: gitlab-org/gitlab!127937\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"[issue-416939] Swap the secondary and primary buttons empty states\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@jerasmus please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "1e344078acaa45d4e2ad3fbebcc86fbb2ad33a35", "created_at": "2023-08-01 06:31:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 10:15:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-01 09:42:16 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1495110152, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to add screenshots instead of videos in the MR description which gives more clarity  , but it was a non blocking comment hence approved.\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@jerasmus please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "1e344078acaa45d4e2ad3fbebcc86fbb2ad33a35", "created_at": "2023-08-01 10:15:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 10:15:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1495112796, "note": "Thank you for the feedback @cngo :bow:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2a2d677da041cd138384060961fb4ec928774e0e", "created_at": "2023-08-01 10:17:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 10:17:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499990702, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n     - to use constants for \"group\" and \"project\"\n     - to use scoped strings for translations \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "b2a48f257d9bf53129cc98b78d1b720817b51c40", "created_at": "2023-08-04 04:02:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 04:02:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1494758939, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125661 -->\n### Apollo boards - Error handling: gitlab-org/gitlab!125661\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Error handling\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "b2a48f257d9bf53129cc98b78d1b720817b51c40", "created_at": "2023-08-01 06:31:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 04:02:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-04 03:28:18 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499998030, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n     - To use `GlDisclosureDropdown` instead of `GlListBox` according to the use case\n     - To Add accessibility `toggleSrText` prop to dropdown\n     - to change jest test case string ( nitpick )\n     - to use `mount` instead of `mountExtended` since no testid was used\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "3cc57fc85da84322309a64587c89539990466d48", "created_at": "2023-08-04 04:14:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 04:14:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1494758883, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127996 -->\n### Migrate new issue GlDropdown to GlDisclosureDropdown: gitlab-org/gitlab!127996\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Migrate new issue GlDropdown to GlDisclosureDropdown\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "3cc57fc85da84322309a64587c89539990466d48", "created_at": "2023-08-01 06:31:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 04:14:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-03 10:58:32 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499999096, "note": "During review:\n\n- Minimal changes and looked good to me without any changes, passed on to maintainer\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "58c311dbfe89e6665035357ca8e5957e84d506ee", "created_at": "2023-08-04 04:16:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 04:16:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1492740118, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126667 -->\n### Add view cache for PWA manifest.json: gitlab-org/gitlab!126667\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add view cache for PWA manifest.json\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "58c311dbfe89e6665035357ca8e5957e84d506ee", "created_at": "2023-07-29 06:30:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 04:16:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-01 06:31:14 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1497804374, "note": "@deepika.guliani this was a super large MR, thanks for tackling it and dropping your questions!\n\n> I suggested not to use hidden elements in code but since it was not a scope of the MR , left it as unblocking comment.\n\nIt's interesting to note that the hidden element was actually **needed**. It just wasn't obvious **why**. It took some digging to figure out the reason behind the pattern used there.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2233420, "discussion_id": "0d33de5ef8a1b478cf3a375b39a6f09a9f8472ba", "created_at": "2023-08-02 19:37:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-02 19:37:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1506027507, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to\n    - Add a test to make sure that resolver is called a particular number of times in addition to being called with params\n    - renaming of some tests\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed \n    - rename the variable `mutationLoading` to `isDeleteInprogress` \n\n@fguibert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "32833de9945b2a81a47c670ed0baec340de1de06", "created_at": "2023-08-09 11:26:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-09 11:26:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1496495447, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127958 -->\n### Adds page URL params for container image tags list pagination: gitlab-org/gitlab!127958\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Adds page URL params for container image tags list pagination\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@fguibert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "32833de9945b2a81a47c670ed0baec340de1de06", "created_at": "2023-08-02 06:31:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-09 11:26:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-09 08:22:17 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1558649388, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: No suggested changes , small and clean MR\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "9c0bcd2336346e449103524d06b06f436aaa5277", "created_at": "2023-09-14 10:37:13 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-14 10:37:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1558673332, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to change all FF's to name the FF's being used in tests\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed pointing out a small test description change\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "480610d69840cf6bf28c182c2a36170cb79cbff7", "created_at": "2023-09-14 10:39:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-14 10:39:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1500078923, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!128324 -->\n### Apollo boards - Various fixes: gitlab-org/gitlab!128324\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Various fixes\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f4b11b1a2a06bee2fe587fc7b683472ba73ba0e9", "created_at": "2023-08-04 06:30:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-08 04:53:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-08 03:14:47 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1503790443, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n    - To avoid `if-else` for apollo mutate\n    - delete unnecessary computed props\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f4b11b1a2a06bee2fe587fc7b683472ba73ba0e9", "created_at": "2023-08-08 04:53:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-08 04:53:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1494758913, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!127900 -->\n### Add Value Streams Dashboard link to group analytics dashboards: gitlab-org/gitlab!127900\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add Value Streams Dashboard link to group analytics dashboards\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "7219aeaeae65aeef46f67a531099de76b708fe4d", "created_at": "2023-08-01 06:31:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-08 05:03:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-05 06:31:37 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1507109492, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n    - to change the wording of some of the tests ( use verbs )\n    - to move some reuseable components in the tests to the scope of the file and make available to all tests\n    - remove unwanted assertions in tests\n    - use `props()` instead of `attributes()` in tests\n    - use i18n for reuseable constant strings\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "7cd5faad465906eb95c5fc7d570f1fe72646c8bb", "created_at": "2023-08-10 04:02:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 04:02:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1503854140, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!128088 -->\n### Extract Work item contents and create a wrapper: gitlab-org/gitlab!128088\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Extract Work item contents and create a wrapper\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "7cd5faad465906eb95c5fc7d570f1fe72646c8bb", "created_at": "2023-08-08 06:31:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 04:02:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-10 03:50:32 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1507111595, "note": "I don't think the variable rename nitpick was a miss, it was just my opinion.\n\nThe UX review was skipped due to the team circumstances, but it's still something to keep in mind when reviewing.\n\nIt was a good review from you overall :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4846639, "discussion_id": "32833de9945b2a81a47c670ed0baec340de1de06", "created_at": "2023-08-10 04:06:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 04:06:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1507117825, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n   - to remove unwanted props\n   - use conditional chaining for computed props\n   - remove unwanted hover class from options\n   - use constants for icon strings from backend\n   - use `data-testid` selectors instead of `data-qa` selectors\n   - remove dead code\n   - use `i18n` for strings\n   - simplify names of props and prop values as well\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "bbbf24dffb2bb5864b288fc26ddd93a863761ed6", "created_at": "2023-08-10 04:18:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 04:18:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1493228070, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126773 -->\n### Rename files in pipeline mini graph, stub out new files: gitlab-org/gitlab!126773\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Rename files in pipeline mini graph, stub out new files\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "bbbf24dffb2bb5864b288fc26ddd93a863761ed6", "created_at": "2023-07-31 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 04:18:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-09 11:27:47 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1489813808, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125260 -->\n### Feat: Add print to PDF for wiki: gitlab-org/gitlab!125260\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Feat: Add print to PDF for wiki\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@pslaughter please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "8373453d6ae6f7cb78780555186a249ed82f7a80", "created_at": "2023-07-27 04:52:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 06:31:04 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-10 06:31:04 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1510643149, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!111116 -->\n### Display pull command for container registry tag: gitlab-org/gitlab!111116\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "616c84e2577641082d10401f5a19fea04ac39323", "created_at": "2023-08-12 06:31:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-12 06:31:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1478620628, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126836 -->\n### Fix: group_select has render with older data: gitlab-org/gitlab!126836\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix: group_select has render with older data\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@peterhegman please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "b9b2f391cef771e5b41cfa3d74c155b0e464b5f7", "created_at": "2023-07-20 03:59:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-12 06:31:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-12 06:31:48 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1521576364, "note": "Thanks for your review in that MR Deepika :bow: You made the right call approving it as is while still raising that UX quirk.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3732265, "discussion_id": "7d0006beefacc717d0cd5a979a97b7b3e36a69ed", "created_at": "2023-08-21 17:02:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-21 17:02:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1520453535, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n   - to remove some unwanted lines of code\n   - not to pass an empty object as a param for a util function\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "a15db1741ff71187d3b7f9881798c37dcae54caa", "created_at": "2023-08-21 06:37:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-21 06:37:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1508849372, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!128700 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix filtering and list count: gitlab-org/gitlab!128700\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix filtering and list count\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@fguibert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "a15db1741ff71187d3b7f9881798c37dcae54caa", "created_at": "2023-08-11 06:14:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-22 06:31:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-22 06:31:11 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1558758161, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n   - to rename component event names to make more sense\n   - to remove `isSingleRequest` from apollo query context after `unbatch_graphql_queries` flag is on on gitlab.com\n   - conditional chaining for object properties\n   - use computed props\n   - use `toEqual` rather than `toStrictEqual`\n   - instead of manually updating store state in tests , use store action dispatch\n   - use `toHaveBeenCalledTimes` which will also check if the mock is called rather than just called mock\n   - not to use `toBeDefined` as per guidelines\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed \n      - using existing strings for translation\n      - simplifying the property access by optional chaining\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2f7d4754087117837fefed46536a971b3dfc50e6", "created_at": "2023-09-14 10:47:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-14 10:47:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1541160506, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130784 -->\n### Add \"Closed Issues\" to Issue Analytics chart: gitlab-org/gitlab!130784\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add \"Closed Issues\" to Issue Analytics chart\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2f7d4754087117837fefed46536a971b3dfc50e6", "created_at": "2023-09-04 06:31:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-14 10:47:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-09 06:31:34 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1498635175, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!126649 -->\n### Migrate jQuery-based Protected Tag Dropdown to Vue: gitlab-org/gitlab!126649\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Migrate jQuery-based Protected Tag Dropdown to Vue\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@leipert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "bbc9db73c97c0b399009e0d7bb840703ab4a4641", "created_at": "2023-08-03 10:58:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 08:37:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-22 06:31:15 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1522244292, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!129775 -->\n### Reduce interference between Duo and discussion summary: gitlab-org/gitlab!129775\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Reduce interference between Duo and discussion summary\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "53c898d1879cdd10cde5f75da8b00081301d2701", "created_at": "2023-08-22 06:31:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 08:23:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-23 06:30:59 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1594726662, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!133476 -->\n### Remove issuable features moved popover: gitlab-org/gitlab!133476\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove issuable features moved popover\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@djadmin please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c3f7f75559ae30c476f441cc34c2ee37003ddfac", "created_at": "2023-10-09 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:09 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1606481959, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134178 -->\n### Migrate work item milestone dropdown to listbox: gitlab-org/gitlab!134178\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "ee21d068c9fa91cd92f22ecaca9599cbfcb803e5", "created_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:04 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1594726690, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!133406 -->\n### Migrate the remaining qa selectors under page/admin to testid: gitlab-org/gitlab!133406\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Migrate the remaining qa selectors under page/admin to testid\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@sliaquat please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c497ef797d3e07bcde187480530eb49d015ac9fb", "created_at": "2023-10-09 06:31:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:07 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1606481935, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134338 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix weight update on move issue: gitlab-org/gitlab!134338\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix weight update on move issue\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "f27e16c0733dac24965412a9e4f105b22695f1a0", "created_at": "2023-10-17 06:31:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-18 06:31:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-18 06:31:17 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1526853785, "note": "You provided an excellent review, keep up the good work :rocket: \n\nThere wasn't a lot for me to find so no worries. \n\nThe only Feedback I can share is to be cautious with suggesting such [\"simplifications\"](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/127240#note_1484661059) in cases where the scope of the problem is too big to be understood very quickly. \n\nI've seen too many bugs being introduced by such \"simplifications\". I would recommend to still address these but with a more open question:\n\n\"Could you help me understand why we would need this additional check on this value?\"\n\nThis will lead to the same result but reduce the risk to remove a needed check in a hurry.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 7293390, "discussion_id": "fcdd30ff934560dab054c3490c24984cf6aa97c7", "created_at": "2023-08-24 13:31:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-24 13:31:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1538915383, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested some minor variable naming changes \n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed pointing out to add test cases/coverage for the new date_timestamp\n\n@pburdette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "cd782183f37f73a8fff9e0ace53ef47ca1473405", "created_at": "2023-09-01 07:56:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-01 07:56:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1525984874, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130013 -->\n### Fix the date filter on the global time tracking report: gitlab-org/gitlab!130013\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix the date filter on the global time tracking report\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@pburdette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "cd782183f37f73a8fff9e0ace53ef47ca1473405", "created_at": "2023-08-24 06:31:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-01 07:56:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-01 06:31:07 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1536523693, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n    - to use `attributes` function for testing the href of the component\n    - let go of `exists` since that test will fail anyways\n\nPost review:\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ealcantara please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c5729dd9f06b5c4d7c5bcd920a0572562bfe2083", "created_at": "2023-08-31 05:11:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-31 05:11:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1525984776, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130100 -->\n### Move job sidebar buttons to header: gitlab-org/gitlab!130100\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Move job sidebar buttons to header\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ealcantara please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c5729dd9f06b5c4d7c5bcd920a0572562bfe2083", "created_at": "2023-08-24 06:31:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-31 05:11:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-30 06:31:02 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1536528512, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to use `default to 0` for prop type `Number`\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "e1e222ad1c47f461bf4968e1fbf49bd8bb0c22f6", "created_at": "2023-08-31 05:19:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-31 05:19:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1524053220, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!129895 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix WIP limit background for swimlanes: gitlab-org/gitlab!129895\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix WIP limit background for swimlanes\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "e1e222ad1c47f461bf4968e1fbf49bd8bb0c22f6", "created_at": "2023-08-23 06:30:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-31 05:19:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-24 06:31:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544850303, "note": "During review:\n\nNothing to suggest , small MR with clean changes :slight_smile: \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@svedova please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "84f273fb98b0fe0d3ddcd8024d685f4b5320fe42", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:36:50 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-06 06:36:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1543203980, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130873 -->\n### Add background color to new MR tabs: gitlab-org/gitlab!130873\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add background color to new MR tabs\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@svedova please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "84f273fb98b0fe0d3ddcd8024d685f4b5320fe42", "created_at": "2023-09-05 06:31:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-06 06:36:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-06 06:31:10 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544853007, "note": "Thank you @ealcantara :bow:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c5729dd9f06b5c4d7c5bcd920a0572562bfe2083", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:39:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-06 06:39:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544852532, "note": "During review:\n\nNothing to suggest , minimal ~frontend changes\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "a7d860ef841371926fd69bc3fa1b772575930606", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:39:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-11 11:23:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1538811613, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130649 -->\n### Remove ApplicationSetting dependency on License: gitlab-org/gitlab!130649\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove ApplicationSetting dependency on License\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "a7d860ef841371926fd69bc3fa1b772575930606", "created_at": "2023-09-01 06:30:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-06 06:39:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-02 06:30:57 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1538811596, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130652 -->\n### Remove `new_graphql_users_autocomplete` feature flag: gitlab-org/gitlab!130652\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove `new_graphql_users_autocomplete` feature flag\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@alexpooley please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c924a01c22da983a146fab4423e3a70d9a6dd3a8", "created_at": "2023-09-01 06:30:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-07 06:37:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-05 06:31:10 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1538811647, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130616 -->\n### Draft: Add possibility for minimal forks: gitlab-org/gitlab!130616\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "ab03e6bb588b8f72ec6195cfa6aa2d31a3b6c6d2", "created_at": "2023-09-01 06:31:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-05 06:31:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-05 06:31:07 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544845361, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130935 -->\n### Move Service Desk lists app under Issues: gitlab-org/gitlab!130935\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Move Service Desk lists app under Issues\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "8074019dea013a49a10689d0c4ea63fe569d78e7", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:31:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-08 08:27:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-08 06:31:03 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1543204010, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130810 -->\n### Add extra attributes to Internal events tracking on frontend: gitlab-org/gitlab!130810\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add extra attributes to Internal events tracking on frontend\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@kushalpandya please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "cd7a7735f8a732d3a2b13c0079ae047db90b9288", "created_at": "2023-09-05 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-08 06:31:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-08 06:31:05 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1525984827, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130075 -->\n### Hide search bar if below threshold: gitlab-org/gitlab!130075\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Hide search bar if below threshold\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@tristan.read please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "ae64b6b7bd2950d31c54abb361e264623276c9dc", "created_at": "2023-08-24 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-08 06:31:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-08 06:31:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1546650918, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: No changes , just fixing failing pipelines\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@fguibert  please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "c924a01c22da983a146fab4423e3a70d9a6dd3a8", "created_at": "2023-09-07 06:37:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-07 06:37:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1546653878, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: No suggestions , it only involved changing `data-testid` changes\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6f6e51dc72e2bccc7175901737ded9a3f715811d", "created_at": "2023-09-07 06:40:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-07 06:40:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1525984893, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!125649 -->\n### Add new E2E test of group audit event streaming: gitlab-org/gitlab!125649\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Add new E2E test of group audit event streaming\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@huzaifaiftikhar1 please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6f6e51dc72e2bccc7175901737ded9a3f715811d", "created_at": "2023-08-24 06:31:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-07 06:40:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-05 06:31:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1549132611, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested if there is a capability of adding a loading placeholder in the dropdown with the loading indicator ? ( Like `Loading`) \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina  please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "bd930c66b3275f52c24a4e78135f287347ebc98d", "created_at": "2023-09-08 06:55:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-08 06:55:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544845350, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130986 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix board selector loading state: gitlab-org/gitlab!130986\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix board selector loading state\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@fguibert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "bd930c66b3275f52c24a4e78135f287347ebc98d", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:31:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-08 06:55:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-07 06:30:58 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1552501750, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!129958 -->\n### Super sidebar: Lighten theme background color: gitlab-org/gitlab!129958\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Super sidebar: Lighten theme background color\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "9c0bcd2336346e449103524d06b06f436aaa5277", "created_at": "2023-09-11 06:31:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-14 10:37:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-12 06:31:05 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1552501694, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131028 -->\n### Peek sidebar when mouse is over the toggle: gitlab-org/gitlab!131028\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Peek sidebar when mouse is over the toggle\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "64fb870f7f1010c2d66423b0f396daba6c28308b", "created_at": "2023-09-11 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 06:08:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-13 06:31:09 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1484788602, "note": "During review:\n\n- :mag: I identified \n     - to remove the background for Progress widget in dark mode as well\n     - update the border over hover similar in all the widgets\n     - sync the background color of dropdowns like inputs in milestone and iterations\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "ca025737166556c3e9fe4473d3960af8c75b13e7", "created_at": "2023-07-24 07:35:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-11 11:22:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544845403, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!129219 -->\n### [Issues] Add a visual toggle for including archived: gitlab-org/gitlab!129219\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"[Issues] Add a visual toggle for including archived\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "480610d69840cf6bf28c182c2a36170cb79cbff7", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-14 10:39:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-13 06:31:11 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1544845382, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!130678 -->\n### Upgrade sentry browser SDK to 7.66.0: gitlab-org/gitlab!130678\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Upgrade sentry browser SDK to 7.66.0\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@leipert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6c0ed41092857db945ecad6b1398e1d8d37b41a5", "created_at": "2023-09-06 06:31:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-15 06:19:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-15 06:17:54 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1562749106, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I asked a question regarding the validity of an extra variable which led to fixing a bug :slight_smile: \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "3ebc3e3a2418974a32574c6e5ee346c9e2db1f24", "created_at": "2023-09-18 05:56:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 05:56:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1560771819, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131737 -->\n### Apollo boards - Remove usage of VueX variables: gitlab-org/gitlab!131737\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Remove usage of VueX variables\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "3ebc3e3a2418974a32574c6e5ee346c9e2db1f24", "created_at": "2023-09-15 06:17:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 05:56:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-16 06:31:05 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1562756509, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to change a test description to depict the true state of the `isCollapsed`. But it was such a pleasure reviewing the MR as it was one of the best I have seen in GitLab\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed \n   - cleanup `getCssClassDimensions` in mock\n   - manually add `wrapper.destroy` in the afterEach block\n   - group `mouse enter` tests into a describe block to prevent repetion\n   - remove translating strings while testing in specs\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "64fb870f7f1010c2d66423b0f396daba6c28308b", "created_at": "2023-09-18 06:08:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 06:08:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1562772193, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131918 -->\n### How to mark feature tests with separate file for accessibility checks: gitlab-org/gitlab!131918\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"How to mark feature tests with separate file for accessibility checks\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@aqualls please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "aecca61bc39672e2a9940fae4a8788cf2daf41fa", "created_at": "2023-09-18 06:30:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-22 06:31:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-22 06:31:17 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1560773323, "note": "During review:\n\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted that I could not verify the MR with multiple back and forth resulting in updating the description a couple of times to correct the FF mentioned in the steps to reproduce.\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@leipert please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6c0ed41092857db945ecad6b1398e1d8d37b41a5", "created_at": "2023-09-15 06:19:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 13:30:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1503795483, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested \n   - to have feature flag check as well for new entry in dashboard list\n   - using computed property\n   - change the test case wordings a little\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed pointing not to use wrapper vm constant property in specs\n\n@f_caplette please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "7219aeaeae65aeef46f67a531099de76b708fe4d", "created_at": "2023-08-08 05:03:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 14:05:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1563502843, "note": "Hey there @deepika.guliani! Most of my points here were about specs readability and predictability. There was nothing here that would have prevented a merge, but sometimes when asking small questions, we find some underlying problems and understand the why.\n\nFor example, [when I proposed](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/131028#note_1555293432) to move the `toggle?.remove` call to the afterEach block, it was a nitpick and it did not block merge, but by pointing it out, the author and I had a chat and we found out that the wrapper was being mounted twice and that's why there were some issues! This did not impact the tests right now, but it might have in the future as more and more tests were added and then the bug becomes harder to find.\n\nThis is not to say that you missed anything really (your reviews are all great!). More that especially in specs, it's easy to miss a lot of underlying problems and it's worth spending a bit of extra time to make sure that everything behave as it should, not just that tests are passing.\n\nKeep up the awesome work!", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 5327378, "discussion_id": "64fb870f7f1010c2d66423b0f396daba6c28308b", "created_at": "2023-09-18 14:11:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 14:11:27 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1564461754, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131951 -->\n### Migrates legacy dropdown in metric-chart: gitlab-org/gitlab!131951\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Migrates legacy dropdown in metric-chart\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@psimyn please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "6d6b5b1f7264489baab8067b4c0b04dcd715d991", "created_at": "2023-09-19 06:30:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-21 09:25:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-21 09:16:27 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1571569999, "note": "During review:\n\nNo suggestions, ~frontend light MR\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is, no ~frontend feedback\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "05164f31440336a07a20686869dd2df41a17f90e", "created_at": "2023-09-22 06:51:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-22 06:51:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1524194801, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!129369 -->\n### Update trial column: gitlab-org/gitlab!129369\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Update trial column\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "05164f31440336a07a20686869dd2df41a17f90e", "created_at": "2023-08-23 08:19:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-22 06:51:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-13 06:31:24 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1583339261, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!132846 -->\n### Fix auto-scrolling to Markdown anchors: gitlab-org/gitlab!132846\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix auto-scrolling to Markdown anchors\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@himkp please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fbcbe5eb8a87626398252813bf07aef01e3c6105", "created_at": "2023-09-29 06:31:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-03 06:27:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-01 06:31:05 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1549256589, "note": "During review:\n\n- No suggestions :slight_smile: \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "8074019dea013a49a10689d0c4ea63fe569d78e7", "created_at": "2023-09-08 08:27:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-02 12:40:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1587381535, "note": "During review:\n\nNo suggestions , clean MR \n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "df4cf03d6347fc866de31e03c787ec0581ddf327", "created_at": "2023-10-03 06:24:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-03 06:24:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1583339281, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!132832 -->\n### Apollo boards - Move toggle labels from VueX to Apollo: gitlab-org/gitlab!132832\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Move toggle labels from VueX to Apollo\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "df4cf03d6347fc866de31e03c787ec0581ddf327", "created_at": "2023-09-29 06:31:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-03 06:24:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-30 06:31:37 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1587384960, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested for a ~UX review since this might have more touching points than mentioned. The code looked good to me.\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n  @himkp please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fbcbe5eb8a87626398252813bf07aef01e3c6105", "created_at": "2023-10-03 06:27:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-03 06:27:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1587385136, "note": "During review:\n\n- No suggestions\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fde7fadae2c69db53cb111911b40f68b032bb9e6", "created_at": "2023-10-03 06:27:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-03 06:27:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1581646466, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!132613 -->\n### Apollo boards - Fix some error handling: gitlab-org/gitlab!132613\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Fix some error handling\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "fde7fadae2c69db53cb111911b40f68b032bb9e6", "created_at": "2023-09-28 06:31:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-03 06:27:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-29 06:31:14 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1589009889, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!133275 -->\n### Apollo boards - Refactor epic lane collapse/expand: gitlab-org/gitlab!133275\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Apollo boards - Refactor epic lane collapse/expand\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "a4112f7b6c1c062a21e7a8e161d3425dbd7952fb", "created_at": "2023-10-04 06:31:13 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-05 06:31:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-05 06:31:08 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1589277355, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested to add some test cases and `toMatchObject` for testing more props of the component\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@arfedoro please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5250484ea95cfa6c621a09dbc0208d55424115b3", "created_at": "2023-10-04 09:32:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:32:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1564461780, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131928 -->\n### Update artifacts page layout: gitlab-org/gitlab!131928\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Update artifacts page layout\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@arfedoro please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5250484ea95cfa6c621a09dbc0208d55424115b3", "created_at": "2023-09-19 06:30:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:32:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-22 06:31:12 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1589281507, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I asked some clarifying questions, but nothing to suggest\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@justin_ho  please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0f6bdfb690e4ee7878f1e6c7f480fa3c95ac7bc3", "created_at": "2023-10-04 09:34:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:34:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1556289060, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131143 -->\n### License Compliance MR widget test & simplify E2E spec: gitlab-org/gitlab!131143\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"License Compliance MR widget test & simplify E2E spec\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@chloeliu please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "0f6bdfb690e4ee7878f1e6c7f480fa3c95ac7bc3", "created_at": "2023-09-13 06:31:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:34:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-19 06:31:06 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1589285808, "note": "During review:\n\nBackend heavy , no suggestions\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@iamphill please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5ba4748f38d15a105090c7d8ab060973c774ff30", "created_at": "2023-10-04 09:37:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:37:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1562772203, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131849 -->\n### Test: migrate new MR qa selectors to testids: gitlab-org/gitlab!131849\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Test: migrate new MR qa selectors to testids\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@mlapierre please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5ba4748f38d15a105090c7d8ab060973c774ff30", "created_at": "2023-09-18 06:30:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-04 09:37:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-20 06:31:05 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1589290037, "note": "During review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: Just to add a before and after video to make the description more clear\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@aturinske please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "4448836cdc3cdedd4976a9cd81d8b12ee9cf29bb", "created_at": "2023-10-04 09:39:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-06 08:46:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-06 08:46:29 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1589877102, "note": "It was a nice initial review! Your suggestion was valuable.\n\nGreat attention to detail, important findings, helpful comments. \n\nGreat work @deepika.guliani :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10762712, "discussion_id": "5250484ea95cfa6c621a09dbc0208d55424115b3", "created_at": "2023-10-04 14:54:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-05 06:22:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1590705608, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!133200 -->\n### Fix devops empty state illustration: gitlab-org/gitlab!133200\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix devops empty state illustration\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@pskorupa please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "d3d8a2e49532ca1064de0c1f29d55da6defb85c7", "created_at": "2023-10-05 06:31:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-06 08:45:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-06 06:31:04 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1592642788, "note": "During review:\n\n- Small MR with no suggestions\n\nPost review:\n\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n`@ealcantara` please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "d3d8a2e49532ca1064de0c1f29d55da6defb85c7", "created_at": "2023-10-06 08:45:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-06 08:45:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1593026254, "note": "@deepika.guliani Good review with good suggestions! A couple of comments:\n\n- I believe we don't prefer `||` over `??`, both are perfectly valid\n- I believe we don't prefer `toEqual` to `toStrictEqual`, in fact `toStrictEqual` is arguably better since it is a more precise check", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4545397, "discussion_id": "2f7d4754087117837fefed46536a971b3dfc50e6", "created_at": "2023-10-06 12:36:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-09 05:08:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1608131000, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134245 -->\n### Remove`issue_assignees_widget` feature flag: gitlab-org/gitlab!134245\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Remove`issue_assignees_widget` feature flag\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@acroitor please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "23efd83fe1a18f112ebcb8e158b67b5e509014c2", "created_at": "2023-10-18 06:31:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-21 06:31:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-21 06:31:26 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1571528474, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!131825 -->\n### Added dropdown with predefined date ranges to Value Stream Analytics: gitlab-org/gitlab!131825\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Added dropdown with predefined date ranges to Value Stream Analytics\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@cngo please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "36b2e435a8457e49253a82a3156bb175daaeabe2", "created_at": "2023-09-22 06:31:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-12 06:31:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-12 06:31:12 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1609999412, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134591 -->\n### Fix epic board children count and weight on card: gitlab-org/gitlab!134591\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix epic board children count and weight on card\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ntepluhina please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "5b708cd017dd2ef2bf249c20c4006a1f13e99031", "created_at": "2023-10-19 06:31:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-20 06:31:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-20 06:31:11 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1611728905, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134377 -->\n### Fix work items sidebar glitch incase of parent widget: gitlab-org/gitlab!134377\n\n\n:heavy_check_mark: @deepika.guliani \"Fix work items sidebar glitch incase of parent widget\" was merged\n\n:left_speech_bubble: convert this into a discussion using the following template\n\n```markdown\nDuring review:\n\n- :speech_balloon: I suggested ...\n- :mag: I identified ...\n- :notepad_spiral: I noted ...\n\nPost review:\n\n- :point_up: I missed ...\n- :white_check_mark: Merged as-is\n\n@ealcantara please add feedback, and compare this review to the average maintainer review.\n```\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "d4a6612056c26010216970d82e54952419c1c886", "created_at": "2023-10-20 06:31:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-24 06:31:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": 11701495, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-24 06:31:24 UTC", "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1615989743, "note": "<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->\n<!-- gitlab-org/gitlab!134730 -->\n### Display abuse report notes (frontend): gitlab-org/gitlab!134730\n\n\n:hourglass_flowing_sand: not yet merged\n\n\n<hr>\n\n:robot: This message was generated automatically using [Review\nTanuki](https://gitlab.com/alberts-gitlab/review-tanuki). **Do not edit manually**\n<!-- GENERATED BY REVIEW TANUKI DO NOT EDIT -->", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "2530d3cd51ab399da0ba2945e6d0f64ad38f0d3d", "created_at": "2023-10-24 06:31:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-24 06:31:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1617560916, "note": "Closing this since https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/129537+ is merged", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "1fae663519385999828d1931b66d7b7f1e52da66", "created_at": "2023-10-25 04:46:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-25 04:46:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 130193114, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 7764, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 17069039}
+{"id": 1489084276, "note": "Yes, because Issues and Work Items live in the same table, while Epics are in a different table. Also, the work we're doing to allow linking Work Items with each other will cut some effort for us to make Issue - Work Item linking too.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "c8f2f81bfb4c4913c0bb4abf415337bc1a6b40f9", "created_at": "2023-07-26 14:41:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 16:08:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1488778366, "note": "@amandarueda Since Work Items live in same table as Issues, the effort to add support for relating Work Item to a legacy issue isn't as much (we can technically fetch a legacy Issue via Work Items API even today!), so I don't think we need multiple issues to track this effort. :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "c8f2f81bfb4c4913c0bb4abf415337bc1a6b40f9", "created_at": "2023-07-26 11:53:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 11:53:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1482245564, "note": "@kushalpandya based on the extended scope of the compatibility needs (relating a work item to an issuable), can you please create additional issues or update the specs of the existing issues for this new requirement?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "c8f2f81bfb4c4913c0bb4abf415337bc1a6b40f9", "created_at": "2023-07-21 19:24:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 11:53:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1489060569, "note": "To confirm @kushalpandya, the effort is minimal specifically for an `issue - work item` relationship, but an `epic - work item` relationship is what would cost us 3+ milestones, correct?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "c8f2f81bfb4c4913c0bb4abf415337bc1a6b40f9", "created_at": "2023-07-26 14:29:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 14:29:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1538970055, "note": "Thanks @egrieff! The implementation plan looks ideal. :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "af7d4722628505e79274ce8357471c1447c484b9", "created_at": "2023-09-01 08:28:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-01 10:19:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1537940828, "note": "@kushalpandya I compiled a list of tasks needed to support this. \n\n~frontend \n\n- Display hierarchy widget for work items with type `Epic`\n  <details><summary>example</summary>\n\n  ![Screenshot_2023-08-31_at_16.06.38](/uploads/1cf3d7a19135056efda506ff3b7ac0b5/Screenshot_2023-08-31_at_16.06.38.png)\n\n  </details>\n- Include `add` dropdown to allow creating and linking a new issue\n  - When creating a new issue, this will be a work item\n  - For adding an existing issue, the [autocomplete query](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/app/assets/javascripts/work_items/graphql/project_work_items.query.graphql) should fetch work items with `Issue` type (which includes legacy issues too). Selecting the issue adds it as a child and displays it in the list\n- When visiting the legacy issue, we need to be able to see the work item epic in the sidebar. We currently fetch the epic using [project_issue_epic.mutation.graphql](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/ee/app/assets/javascripts/sidebar/queries/project_issue_epic.mutation.graphql) but we'll also have to check if a parent work item is present. We can use the following query:\n\n```graphql\nquery getParent {\n  workItem(id: \"gid://gitlab/WorkItem/<LEGACY_ISSUE_ID>\") {\n    widgets {\n      ... on WorkItemWidgetHierarchy {\n        parent {\n          id\n          title\n          webUrl\n        }\n      }\n    }\n  }\n}\n```\n\n~backend \n\n- ~~Migration to add `WorkItems::HierarchyRestriction` for epic type~~ - Done in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/127917) \n- Add validation to prevent setting a parent epic (work item) if the issue already has a legacy epic assigned. Additionally, prevent setting a legacy epic if a parent epic (work item) is already present.\n\nI can go ahead and create tasks for these if you agree with the approach.\n\nSomething to keep in mind, we can display the epic in the legacy issue's sidebar but no other functionality can be supported without creating a legacy epic for every work item epic that is assigned to a legacy issue.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "af7d4722628505e79274ce8357471c1447c484b9", "created_at": "2023-08-31 16:27:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-01 13:33:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1553333989, "note": "Closing as all tasks are completed. Frontend tasks were promoted to issues so they can be tracked independently with https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/423981 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/423984", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "0e9571499e4d26d0241d9038fab4d3b57c0760d1", "created_at": "2023-09-11 14:58:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-11 15:23:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 129393876, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067889592, "note": "Hi @leducmills, \n\nI started this issue for our problem validation. I made it confidential to not influence our survey as the survey takers may be up-voters on the epic this is linked to. Whether this makes sense to ask the very same people in the survey remains to be discussed - you are the expert. The goal however is to make it non-confidential as soon as we have done the survey. \n\nI will add further context in the coming days and then reach out to you.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "43ad8176d0157577ab804ee9e97aa21c66222620", "created_at": "2022-08-17 16:15:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 16:16:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 113414743, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067889892, "note": "cc: @mle", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "43ad8176d0157577ab804ee9e97aa21c66222620", "created_at": "2022-08-17 16:16:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 16:16:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 113414743, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1092650147, "note": "Hi @leducmills, have you been able to send out the survey?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "43ad8176d0157577ab804ee9e97aa21c66222620", "created_at": "2022-09-08 10:32:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-09-08 10:32:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 113414743, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1093134713, "note": "Hi @tlinz - we are currently recruiting for the survey to ensure we have enough qualified participants, and will begin inviting them to take the survey later today. Should start seeing responses in the next few days.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10060155, "discussion_id": "43ad8176d0157577ab804ee9e97aa21c66222620", "created_at": "2022-09-08 14:59:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-09-09 10:48:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 113414743, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1472325391, "note": "I am closing this issue as the validation is done. \n\ncc: @mle / @leducmills", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "27977437404f1055ab3f1f3bdab3ac76026c88f7", "created_at": "2023-07-17 13:55:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-17 13:55:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 113414743, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1489952622, "note": "Sure thank you :pray:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "aa19390de5e97762e5a6a276a4199c06ddae7c50", "created_at": "2023-07-27 07:23:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-27 07:23:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1493210475, "note": "Changed the weight according to the time spent", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "34056cd32d6bffdd3d10617e8915d71e485ea27f", "created_at": "2023-07-31 06:09:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 06:09:27 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1467543254, "note": "Haven't weighed this yet, so going to move to %\"16.3\"", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "fbb4aa80eb958f7d4892c5343671aff89bc90b9a", "created_at": "2023-07-12 19:56:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-12 19:56:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1470578981, "note": "@deepika.guliani Correct! It also includes adding the work item type icon and updating the styling slightly.\n\n> :unicorn: [Workitemtype] created X days ago by Author", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "aa19390de5e97762e5a6a276a4199c06ddae7c50", "created_at": "2023-07-14 21:40:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-14 21:40:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1468267581, "note": "hey @esybrant :wave: \n\n![Screenshot_2023-07-13_at_2.11.30_PM](/uploads/13b41114824ffdb8ea6e8d3eddcc1835/Screenshot_2023-07-13_at_2.11.30_PM.png)\n\nhere the scope of the issue to Change the meta data in work items to\n\n\"Objected created 2 days ago by Deepika Guliani\" , right ? Right ?", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "aa19390de5e97762e5a6a276a4199c06ddae7c50", "created_at": "2023-07-13 10:56:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-14 21:40:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1467485139, "note": "@gweaver @donaldcook This one is ready for ~\"workflow::planning breakdown\"", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "248bf7b2791baf7ccb09859ce878cac35493295c", "created_at": "2023-07-12 18:58:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-13 17:12:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1488185905, "note": "@esybrant Hey :wave: Do we want to show the \"updated at information\" with \"created at\".\n\nIn the designs and in issues , there is no updated at information with metadata\n\n![Screenshot_2023-07-26_at_11.05.48_AM](/uploads/0a35901594c5b1d288d45b5ac45ad2d1/Screenshot_2023-07-26_at_11.05.48_AM.png)", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "aa19390de5e97762e5a6a276a4199c06ddae7c50", "created_at": "2023-07-26 05:36:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 05:36:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1488210755, "note": "![Screenshot_2023-07-26_at_11.31.13_AM](/uploads/1e359a6f2addbd695f996f3035bb4892/Screenshot_2023-07-26_at_11.31.13_AM.png)\n\nThe above screenshot is what I am envisioning :thinking:", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "aa19390de5e97762e5a6a276a4199c06ddae7c50", "created_at": "2023-07-26 06:02:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 06:02:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1480267245, "note": "Let's work on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/415079 first, so going to mark this as blocked. @deepika.guliani also going to assign this one to you but no need to start working on it until next iteration.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "9259356f5ef90fea992146400227ede59bb8f6aa", "created_at": "2023-07-20 20:06:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 08:41:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1489560154, "note": "@deepika.guliani I believe we are moving the \"updated at\" information out of the metadata for the new work item detail view, but I'm not sure exactly where (I don't see it in the designs at the moment). Let's leave it where it is now and I'll check in with Nick and see where we're planning on moving it.", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "aa19390de5e97762e5a6a276a4199c06ddae7c50", "created_at": "2023-07-26 20:08:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 20:08:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1503776343, "note": "Closing , verified on GitLab Enterprise Edition 16.3.0-pre 61748eb0490", "noteable_type": "Issue", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "21100054581f087d76312ffc1faf9a4a37df1b68", "created_at": "2023-08-08 04:21:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-08 04:21:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 130125924, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": 278964, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398039, "note": "@dbogatov, I mostly agree with you, really they can implement functionality you mentioned, and it would be great. Nice point!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 346483, "discussion_id": "249a1a4c3ace54eb7fa6c5229267c7a9f89e24a2", "created_at": "2017-04-21 20:11:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-04-21 20:11:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1133560939, "note": "I have a 500 seat gitlab~3207279 ~SaaS ~customer who is interested in this feature.\n\n* Link to request: [SFDC link](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000SEhmfAAD) Internal\n* ~\"customer priority::8\" \n* Why interested: The customer is looking to report the total line of code across all GitLab projects under their namespace.\n* Problem they are trying to solve: The customer has some internal teams who are trying to integrate tooling with GitLab to measure and track code coverage.\n* Current solution for this problem: none\n* Impact to the customer of not having this: Inability to utilize other tools in conjunction with GitLab and thus slowing adoption of the platform.\n* PM to mention: @tlinz \n\n/cc @cgeisel @jhenkel1 @adiwolff", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4810535, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2022-10-12 18:20:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-15 13:35:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398118, "note": "I would like a total number of lines not including blank ones.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 102482, "discussion_id": "5108f793d0913f211aafdac224479970ca294d54", "created_at": "2018-12-28 07:42:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-12-28 07:42:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398104, "note": "+1\n\nIt's a great feature to have especially if you're to brag about how much work has been put into the project in a presentation or something.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 709639, "discussion_id": "da4e7dafb86e0dd4fae3086a3eea68d9bcd6391c", "created_at": "2018-11-13 21:05:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398111, "note": "Hi @markglenfletcher \nIt's very good things that showing percent,but lines number complete it's feature,doesn't?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 37100, "discussion_id": "257f948551df38fe027c50ec23aec702bafc686f", "created_at": "2018-11-13 22:12:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-13 22:12:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398090, "note": "i will join, i want see my ego", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 688008, "discussion_id": "6e5b2456c1f994e1d99360b4e68f23b3afd13dc6", "created_at": "2018-07-30 22:42:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-07-30 22:42:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398183, "note": "for a company that has thousands of repositories that's just completely ineffective", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "70fea29bf396a4a31c2d645fb6e6b5c4b3a3f75e", "created_at": "2020-02-21 09:13:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398096, "note": "Is there a way to get this data using the API?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1861874, "discussion_id": "9d31d1d9c19080234ecfab0e3158110c9f0b6bae", "created_at": "2018-08-14 11:06:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-14 11:06:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398255, "note": "There is a certain lag.\nI suggest we do not subscribe back until admins fix it.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "36181666e5d8716749e77e66647442be95e59362", "created_at": "2021-02-07 18:26:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-02-07 18:26:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398210, "note": "Another customer inquiring if this function exists\nhttps://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/161342", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5791080, "discussion_id": "bfff8d8da11e5a9a5ca80af56bd3e99d82f1a54d", "created_at": "2020-06-19 09:50:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-06-19 09:50:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398119, "note": "any update about this feature ?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2346644, "discussion_id": "75985767ee7bc2d6dcc6d57e1e92a8adc4ee42eb", "created_at": "2019-01-13 08:43:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-01-13 08:43:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398101, "note": "Silly me, I was looking for it under the repo API. That's a big help, thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1861874, "discussion_id": "a9b5ccc2df039e08a636a8108aef70fd4186ca72", "created_at": "2018-08-14 11:14:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-14 11:14:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398021, "note": "Please add a chart with the SLOC metric, it is a metric more useful than the number of commits", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1276118, "discussion_id": "35ba388f39241ee60b0ccb19fe65226c7cd784e1", "created_at": "2017-04-21 14:50:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398227, "note": "Customer would also like to track lines of code per developer.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "b9b84808e244584cd829ddf063757dbdca273385", "created_at": "2020-08-28 21:23:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-08-28 21:23:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398027, "note": "@wagnerpinheiro, [S]LOC metrics are rather old. They are not actual now (only in 80-90s they were). Your idea is pretty but only for developers ego. For really gentlemen customers GITLAB maybe have to improve their charts with different modern metrics. As example, for analyzing object-oriented languages they can add metric of Chidamber & Kemerer.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 346483, "discussion_id": "249a1a4c3ace54eb7fa6c5229267c7a9f89e24a2", "created_at": "2017-04-21 19:52:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-31 12:36:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 346483, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398041, "note": "ZD ticket: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/80860\n\nA Customer requested this feature. :)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 695248, "discussion_id": "6a2a7217d873f0e09801d8a239cfb9f919bc99f7", "created_at": "2017-08-03 18:07:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-08-03 18:07:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398147, "note": "This should not be moved to EE as the initial feature was added by the community.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1283330, "discussion_id": "ec9e3edc42d4864d66cbcac4f7c17e434c95a41a", "created_at": "2019-07-03 13:32:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 13:32:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398150, "note": "As mentioned below, as long as we keep the history through a merge or copying over information, it sounds good to close this with an update @valexieva :)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4158075, "discussion_id": "857249c11774e83eb5f2b29d7ac4910bb7537a0d", "created_at": "2019-07-08 09:36:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-08 09:36:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398124, "note": "My developer ego gives +1 for this stats. I think, if you count the lines anyway, it might be no problem to offer different stats as options, because the counting might be the most expensive part anyway. \n\n*Yeah* for looking at your developer productivity in numbers. :-)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 491329, "discussion_id": "78be7669f40d747367e3d06e9819384a1a705b66", "created_at": "2019-04-09 09:10:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-04-09 09:10:04 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398179, "note": "Customer interested in this feature. https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000W2eBo (Internal link)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4587928, "discussion_id": "3c98dd928b5e8994b18b71557caad27c29571e73", "created_at": "2019-12-10 19:56:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-12-10 19:56:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398355, "note": "My company is a Premium customer - we would really like to have this and even more metrics regarding type of language like number of components, files, etc.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291964, "discussion_id": "f62be4cd63e9f26b307bdb5c8612fedb09249cb6", "created_at": "2021-11-02 16:11:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-02 16:11:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398283, "note": "@cupini I'm tagging @ljlane who is the PM for gitlab~10046106", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4376883, "discussion_id": "71c57bb879d7f04a6e5cb214ad632998019c4f34", "created_at": "2021-04-28 00:09:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398352, "note": "Another gitlab~2278657 Customer  interested in this feature [Internal Link](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0014M00001kHlpn)\n\ncc/ @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5250128, "discussion_id": "8fbd49178acc3cb10b6e51f4e1f07208c85aa057", "created_at": "2021-10-18 19:30:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1111110468, "note": ":bell:  Hello GitLab community! We are currently recruiting for some interviews on this topic, and would love some of you to participate. It will be a 30 minute interview, and **you will be compensated $60USD** (or local equivalent) for your time.\n\nIf you're interested, please complete the [consent form found here](https://gitlab.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7ai4v9Jlzk9MVPo). Interviews will start next week. We look forward to speaking with you!\n\n/cc @tlinz", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10060155, "discussion_id": "bc21177b5a96a4076ae5e69964c76a5d9d845016", "created_at": "2022-09-22 17:54:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-04 06:49:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1172614438, "note": ":wave: @shoyle1, to clarify:\n\n> The customer is looking to report the total line of code across all GitLab projects under their namespace.\n\nDoes that mean just the LoC or the LoC per language?\n\nAlso, how and why is having the LoC helpful to \n\n> to integrate tooling with GitLab to measure and track code coverage.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2022-11-15 13:35:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-15 13:35:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1173120208, "note": "@cgeisel @jhenkel1 Can you answer Torsten's question above? :point_up_2_tone1:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4810535, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2022-11-15 19:53:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-15 19:53:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1173132842, "note": "@tlinz \n\n> Does that mean just the LoC or the LoC per language?\n\nThis was a request from their CISO, ideally, it'd be a breakdown of both, LoC and LoC per language.\n\n> Also, how and why is having the LoC helpful to integrate tooling with GitLab to measure and track code coverage?\n\nThe rationale behind it isn't tied to code coverage as much as it's tied to their need to understand their development environment at a macro level, as well as to be able to identify the needs of their org.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4810535, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2022-11-15 20:01:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-15 20:01:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1173177828, "note": "@shoyle1 - did you check out this: https://gitlab.com/guided-explorations/ci-cd-plugin-extensions/ci-cd-plugin-extension-scc ? (referenced once way back in this issue)\n\nIt does all projects in an entire group hierarchy as you can see by this job log: https://gitlab.com/guided-explorations/ci-cd-plugin-extensions/ci-cd-plugin-extension-scc/-/jobs/835498365", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2022-11-15 20:40:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-12-13 22:57:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1172624756, "note": ":wave: @sheininger , to clarify:\n\n> Customer is trying to find a way to report the total line of code across all GitLab projects.\n\nDoes that mean just LoC or LoC per language?\n\nAlso, how and why is having the LoC helpful to\n\n> to integrate tooling with GitLab to measure and track code coverage.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "5f48dd95dd52df69c4baf7a6a9eb4e87843a5249", "created_at": "2022-11-15 13:42:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-15 13:42:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398086, "note": "Hi,\u00a0I haven't heard anything back yet.\nDennis\nDennis Biringer | Principal Software EngineerPacific Defense Systems, LLC (PDS)Integrity Applications Incorporated535 Lipoa Parkway\u00a0 Suite 101, Kihei HI, 96753dbiringer@integrity-apps.com(808) 214-0765\n\n[smime.p7s](/uploads/8f61843d29e748024aa271ecf9928eae/smime.p7s)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1512428, "discussion_id": "9e661b5e4cf0caf6403d62dde028802da7682773", "created_at": "2018-04-12 01:49:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-04-12 01:49:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398088, "note": "We also would like to see the total number of lines of code, files, etc. Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 102482, "discussion_id": "2548835cbc0cf57b61390bcc3093d952b94b0edb", "created_at": "2018-05-31 17:37:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-05-31 17:37:16 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398091, "note": "We need more cowbell!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 196721, "discussion_id": "3c2adbfddaaf0de70d917b7106efe20f37b07d6a", "created_at": "2018-08-07 19:16:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-07 19:16:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398093, "note": "@billclark agreed", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2414870, "discussion_id": "24f7ce58948f5a4498d5e03a20f558db68fcb7a3", "created_at": "2018-08-08 02:28:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-08-08 02:28:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398100, "note": "@shellyniz Currently it's presented as a percentage via the API:\n- https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/api/projects.html#languages", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "af92814e06eb7ee7ab5c36e24ed012bb50aa914d", "created_at": "2018-08-14 11:08:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398103, "note": "+1", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 154953, "discussion_id": "165231760ca43690172238422f842de16fb5776c", "created_at": "2018-11-12 09:25:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-12 09:25:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398106, "note": "I don't see us getting to this anytime soon, but I'm happy to label this with gitlab-ce~1890178 for a community contribution. \n\nWe express languages as % of repo, might we also show the absolute LOC? The Charts page might be a sensible place to display this. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/graphs/master/charts for an example. The project overview page could also work, we currently use a multi-colored horizontal line to represent this and show percentages there on mouseover.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1086520, "discussion_id": "a45d244a8dcf2eb16b9860ff176ad487074dc1b0", "created_at": "2018-11-13 21:16:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-25 00:21:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 1086520, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2018-11-13 21:18:46 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398108, "note": "Hi @jeremy\\_ \nDo you want to adding this feature with 'Lines Number'?And so 'Total Lines Number'?\nWhat's your opinion?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 37100, "discussion_id": "0dcca9aa7f108dd8b2440889e0ee8e97724725c7", "created_at": "2018-11-13 22:05:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-11-13 22:05:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398112, "note": "Just started to use gitlab, and this is one the first stats i hoped to see in the \"Charts\", however i was surprised it's missing :(", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3219145, "discussion_id": "2bc4e707bc1fec54baded5713c92ced6fe7f6c18", "created_at": "2018-12-22 10:59:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-06-10 15:03:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398115, "note": "> Do you want to adding this feature with 'Lines Number'? And so 'Total Lines Number'? What's your opinion?\n\nI'd love to hear your proposal, but I think the Charts page may be an easy place to add this:\n\n![image](/uploads/e36946ba9cbe1973c462ca24b95aa780/image.png)\n\nWe could include a separate column for LOC on each row, and include a \"Total\" row at the bottom that displays the sum of the rows. What do you think?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1086520, "discussion_id": "0a0135054322a86b6e195d79478bfbb08dee0078", "created_at": "2018-12-28 06:32:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 1086520, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-03-10 12:54:08 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398120, "note": "Just so its stated explicitly, the language bar on the projects overview page is based on bytes. Iteration over each blob to count the number of lines will be quite expensive and to make it performant on gitlab.com scale will be quite the challenge :smile: Bytes are chosen as Git stores the size of each blob with its name. So if a blob has the path `path/to/file.rb` it can take the extension and detect it's Ruby. It already has the number of bytes, so it can move on.\n\nLines however is harder, as now you'd have to either iterate each blob each time, or be clever with caching combined with diffing, which in turn might lead to race conditions.\n\nThat all being said, this would require a new RPC to Gitaly, and gitaly-proto changes. Happy to review MRs there! :cat:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 101578, "discussion_id": "cbbc15a067deed9b1dacafd314fa03a216cb7c20", "created_at": "2019-01-22 11:57:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-01-22 11:57:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398121, "note": "Not sure if this helps anyone, but if you use GitBash (or linux terminal) and go into your local repo and type this command:\n`find . -not -path \u201c*/.git/*\u201d | xargs wc -l`\nYou get the total line counts. No extra things to install - just a bash command.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2223731, "discussion_id": "24ea9310d1cd72f9ce883d4f8610e598881283df", "created_at": "2019-03-06 17:41:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-03-06 17:41:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398122, "note": "this just counts the raw line number of the files treated as pieces of texts. I guess what people want here is more like a per-language breakdown.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2438931, "discussion_id": "01e42a7c17e4409f530b6ac88178d506007b8c66", "created_at": "2019-03-06 18:07:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-03-06 18:07:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398123, "note": "There is another possible way by using the git ls-files command with a file type filter.\n\n* Java example: `git ls-files *.java *.xml | xargs wc -l`\n* Ruby example: `git ls-files *.rb Rakefile Gemfile | xargs wc -l`\n\nOr whatever files you want to include in your count. It can also works in subfolders to provide counts of just the contents of that folder.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2814876, "discussion_id": "0c091188c51d65b36b23a94b9924e1f477bcb7be", "created_at": "2019-03-06 18:22:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398125, "note": "This is not graphical and not included in gitlab, but it serves my interest totally. Also it might be a good starting point for Gitlab's implementation: \n\nhttps://github.com/AlDanial/cloc\n\nUse `cloc --vcs git` to count only watched files in a git repository.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 491329, "discussion_id": "fdbab1323898ce69e78555ebe572fd74efd6d5fa", "created_at": "2019-04-09 09:20:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-04-09 09:20:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398130, "note": "Same here!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4122216, "discussion_id": "2bc4e707bc1fec54baded5713c92ced6fe7f6c18", "created_at": "2019-06-10 15:03:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-06-10 15:03:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398140, "note": "@aakriti.gupta, should we just close this one in favor of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104, since it's a prerequisite?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "857249c11774e83eb5f2b29d7ac4910bb7537a0d", "created_at": "2019-07-03 11:46:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-08 09:36:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398141, "note": "If you do, make sure you somehow transfer the popularity and influence as well. \nThis issue has 2 years of (possible sparse) history and 300+ upvotes. \nThe newer one is month long. \n\nIt may make more sense to either transfer this one to EE, or merge the other one to here.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "fcbf03d609927ee794e2852ab3717c84bffa0a07", "created_at": "2019-07-03 11:52:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 11:52:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398145, "note": "@dbogatov, yes, we will take everything from this one in account - it's planned for 12.2. Do you want to comment on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104? What's your opinion?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "5b0125b0b2775efc42ccce2f935fcc035ec3e0d0", "created_at": "2019-07-03 11:56:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-07-03 11:56:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3511154, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398148, "note": "Thanks @max-wittig for pointing out! The EE issue has more content, which will be available on group/instance level. We would like to move all analytics into one space in the top nav bar, so will be thinking through how to combine what is in cc now and the additional functionality we will be adding in ee. Any feedback is welcome!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "f760bbbd482890cdb1159b72be96ee6ba3b5c701", "created_at": "2019-07-03 15:22:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398151, "note": "@valexieva I wrote a small script, which reports the languages an instance has by exporting prometheus metrics. Relying just on absolute values would make a lot more sense, than the approach that I'm using now. But I won't use absolute numbers, if `EE` is required for this.\n\nhttps://github.com/max-wittig/gitlab-languages\n\nI think it would be fine, if the Graph feature stays in EE, but it would be nice, if the API would return absolute numbers.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1283330, "discussion_id": "ee16838b5f2e5cdf4fb077259013563b5fb9cedd", "created_at": "2019-07-08 14:35:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 1283330, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2019-07-08 14:42:50 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398156, "note": "Keeping this open until we complete: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/13163. After that will close, the existing functionality will be available in CE, further functionality as per https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104 in EE.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "f3e381dce49fd308f8fdde5c7c3e157ede6a06c7", "created_at": "2019-08-01 13:19:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-08-01 13:19:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398160, "note": "Hi, we have scheduled LOC plus language trends for 12.3 - please find here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12104#note_194198775. We will also ensure that it's available for CE users in this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65616 before we remove the https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/-/graphs/master/charts", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3511154, "discussion_id": "f3000b79106a55ef8ba0b5cdbb004022fba9c314", "created_at": "2019-08-05 10:11:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-08-05 10:11:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398176, "note": "This is moving back to the %\"Backlog\" for the reasons described in ZJ's [comment above](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/17800#note_214979038). We're absolutely accepting merge requests on this one, but the Manage stage needs to prioritize other areas at the moment.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1086520, "discussion_id": "f8cbd82c57cde0be40306b60332a6e2a0c7330b2", "created_at": "2019-11-11 01:18:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2019-11-11 01:18:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398180, "note": "> Second, I would love to see some *absolute* data (number of files, lines, bytes).\n\nAs the description states, the goal is to understand what the bar means, and see some absolute data. @jeremy Would the MVC here be to simply report the number of bytes, since that's what we're measuring?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 424775, "discussion_id": "3d4687d64d7cbef78db875e4b783da2edf385b93", "created_at": "2020-02-14 16:16:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-14 16:16:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398181, "note": "Github provides this feature, it would be nice to be able to obtain comparable metrics from Gitlab as we are using both.\n\nOur use case to get these numbers is for figuring out the prevalence of code in any given language across our entire codebase to inform us with requirements for code analysis tools etc. \"90% of language Y in repository X\" without any context to the number is mostly a useless metric. We need to understand how much language Y there is in totality across our multiple SCM systems. Now i can only count how many repos have a given language in general which is not exactly the same thing.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "70fea29bf396a4a31c2d645fb6e6b5c4b3a3f75e", "created_at": "2020-02-20 14:53:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-20 21:49:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398182, "note": "@unitysipu \nI would say for your use case it is better to just create a tool that clones all the repos you want metrics on and runs cloc or a similar tool - https://www.npmjs.com/package/cloc\nHaving these metrics across groups/organizations in github and gitlab makes less sense to me than to provide some information about what powers a given project.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1612315, "discussion_id": "70fea29bf396a4a31c2d645fb6e6b5c4b3a3f75e", "created_at": "2020-02-20 21:49:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-20 21:49:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398184, "note": "The amount of code often correlates with things like risk. It's sorta interesting from analysis point of view if you have projects that have 500, 5000, 500k or 5M lines of code. You may want to prioritize or categorize the big projects over the small ones (obviously that's not the full picture, depends on what that code is used for etc.). But just looking at our entire codebase / repositories from the top and knowing there's \"90% of PHP\" in some project without understanding there's a million lines of it doesn't really help. So while individual teams may have a good grasp of their project, somebody looking over our entire portfolio you need more information to figure out who you should get in touch with. Obviously you can also try to check the file size metrics etc. and try to filter out uninteresting file types or other similar cumbersome workarounds but it's just more work to land on data that could easily be provided by the platform directly.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "70fea29bf396a4a31c2d645fb6e6b5c4b3a3f75e", "created_at": "2020-02-21 09:41:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-21 09:41:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398186, "note": "Even if you have 1000 repos, it would still not be that much work to write a tool that accumulates all the information using the method I described, and you're going to get it a lot faster than by asking gitlab to add a feature. \nAs for expanding the scope of this issue to cover groups and organizations as a whole, I guess gitlab devs might consider that as an enterprise feature at some point.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1612315, "discussion_id": "70fea29bf396a4a31c2d645fb6e6b5c4b3a3f75e", "created_at": "2020-02-21 20:38:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-21 20:38:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398187, "note": "Yes, *obviously* there are workarounds that require you to analyze all the source code yourself. That's not the point of this feature request. I see the conversation revolving around suggestions and local optimizations for individual teams / developers or the importance of the amount of code in context of individuals. I figured it's prudent to provide another point of view that may have an impact on the thinking of why it's important to have this implemented. There are other use cases for the LOC/Language metrics that can be of importance for somebody who is looking at your organization as a whole.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "70fea29bf396a4a31c2d645fb6e6b5c4b3a3f75e", "created_at": "2020-02-24 08:36:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-02-24 08:36:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398189, "note": "##### For person\nPeople expect it, since various metrics implemented in GitHub. At some point everyone just genuinely interested in those metrics even only for self-esteem. And it is frustrating to not find them on GitLab. And since GitHub made everyone think to have them out-of-the-box, people became lazy and don't want to pollute their work environment with some difficult code inspection tools that they will use once just because of curiosity. \n\n##### For big team\nIf you are working in a solid company with big code base, and you professionally perform code analysis and give consulting based on it, then it is ridiculous to do it on the basis of GitHub or GitLab, likely you will need to have more sophisticated special tool for it.\n\n##### Conclusion\nSo this feature is not a mandatory. In first place GitLab need to improve its role system, this is a real bummer:) But GitLab doesn't do it for 2 years, so probably they have more important tasks. I prefer to use GitHub because of role system and metrics.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 635873, "discussion_id": "169aad8d047c6d97e3b8f9ba105c5c0b483fe4a5", "created_at": "2020-02-24 13:32:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398196, "note": "I disagree. It's absolutely not ridiculous at all to have _code metrics_ available in the source code repository you might use.\n\nAny external tool will have to analyse the code outside of the SCM makes the whole process inherently ineffective and slow by design. Gitlab (and github) already has the code inside it and therefore is in the best position to provide metrics and data on it. Furthermore, modern (sophisticated) code analysis tools _integrate directly_ with Github these days through Github applications, but even they cannot provide this data either without analyzing the entire codebase separately.\n\nWhile workarounds exist they are all bad in a large organization. I agree that it's clear this is not a priority based on the fact it's been open for two years, but also it's clear that the reasoning and discussion around this feature is very narrow and developer (ego) oriented.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "24531b18a816ede01c75d7a5ff13eb97b706a66b", "created_at": "2020-03-05 12:36:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398197, "note": "Honestly, with that chain of argument: Why have a commit graph? You can do this locally on your git repo. Or why have a bugtracker? You can just install trac separately. Or why have a wiki? Haven't you heard of mediaWiki? And so on. \n\nFact is, that this is a standard feature that has many uses for individuals and companies (also for example if I actually will bother to contribute to a code base or if its not worth it because id have to learn X new languages).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4911777, "discussion_id": "a48a242dda15ad2428f0fdca39fc4efbfd2cb50b", "created_at": "2020-03-05 12:42:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-04 06:48:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4911777, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2021-09-17 20:10:44 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398018, "note": "@dbogatov Thanks for the proposal. We'll just have to leave this open and see if it becomes a popular request.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "aa2972622a144d30aaf6cc2b0dcc4cd45da48549", "created_at": "2017-04-19 04:14:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-04-19 04:14:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398032, "note": "@yachmenov_c_ I have to admit, I had to look up what Chidamber & Kemerer metrics were. And yes, I would love to see those metrics in GitLab.\n\n**However**, I feel like it is quite hard (or say, resource heavy) to implement those. Each language will have to provide a service to get OOP relations. We cannot derive those metrics just by parsing the text.\n\n**On the other side**, simple line counter per language (even the one which omits comments and empty lines) is relatively easy to implement.\n\nAs for developers' ego, I have to admit it would not mind seeing LOC metrics, but I am sure there are other reasons for these metrics.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "249a1a4c3ace54eb7fa6c5229267c7a9f89e24a2", "created_at": "2017-04-21 20:00:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398053, "note": "Had a similar request. I was able to get this info by extracting the Gitlab backup repositories from a backup and unbundling everything then running the following utility on the directory.\r\n\r\nBut it would be nice to see this kind of information on a project / server admin level, just to provide an overview of things currently within GitLab user / admin interfaces.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.npmjs.com/package/cloc\r\n\r\n![image](/uploads/6ea6969380c6967141e3f1c2adcd9da2/image.png)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 261290, "discussion_id": "bb47f7cc21d0fd458118535c9b813a3902578765", "created_at": "2017-08-03 18:15:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 261290, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-03-30 20:42:31 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398060, "note": "This would be awesome!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 239547, "discussion_id": "925084971ad8ffed68edec0da77529ce0cf249fc", "created_at": "2017-09-29 02:34:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-09-29 02:34:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398063, "note": "In order to get this request some attention, this issue has been marked as a potentially interesting proposal as it meets the following criteria:\n\n* Labelled as a feature proposal\n* More than 10 upvotes\n* Unscheduled (not associated with a milestone)\n\nThanks for your proposal!\n\n\n\n/cc @markglenfletcher", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "7c5d305df45d90ed7cf425e2a89cba6d246869d9", "created_at": "2017-11-18 04:31:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-18 04:31:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398068, "note": "This is getting popular\n\n@DouweM ~\"Accepting Merge Requests\" for this one?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 419655, "discussion_id": "e6ccc860caae795f6271b6af68b76958af39051a", "created_at": "2017-11-18 10:51:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-18 10:51:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398073, "note": "@markglenfletcher I think it may not be well defined enough yet for ~\"Accepting Merge Requests\" . We removed the repository language a while ago because it didn't perform well, so we'll need to figure out way to restore it without reintroducing the performance issue.\n\nThis is related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/40236 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23931. \n\n/cc @jramsay", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 87854, "discussion_id": "eaba001590b450c8de3d1b76c52df548ce2934b6", "created_at": "2017-11-20 13:02:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-20 13:02:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398077, "note": "If we can provide a foundation in gitlab-ce#23931 that computes the language stats without performance, we could definitely open this up for ~\"Accepting Merge Requests\"", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1187333, "discussion_id": "5509a8169ad72aee3ac5fe662017f4a8650b1694", "created_at": "2017-11-21 15:16:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2017-11-21 15:17:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 1187333, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398080, "note": "Having the LOC in the table with the language breakdown and percentage would be great.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1512428, "discussion_id": "dd21b8ef67e83e1fb5e74d7756ec189416cac688", "created_at": "2018-04-11 02:26:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-04-11 02:26:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398082, "note": "Hello,\n\nDisplay the LOC in the chart would be a very nice feature :slight_smile: \n\nAny update about this ?\n\nThank you very much.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2182793, "discussion_id": "7cdb7ea5dad1765d300a84c23c639f8b12b20e6e", "created_at": "2018-04-11 07:59:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2018-04-11 07:59:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398202, "note": "Gold customer requesting this feature: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/154631 with a slight twist: they'd like to see the number of lines by group/sub-group.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "27416ac89423174581c013da3fea3385a99fdff9", "created_at": "2020-04-24 18:02:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 786106, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-03-30 20:46:35 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398205, "note": "It's not per _language_ but the following rails console snippet will give you an estimate of number of lines per `Project` on a self-managed instance where the `git-data` is on a partition or directly attached volume.\n\nIt can break a bit if there's no `master` branch or if a repository for some reason doesn't have a `HEAD`, so it's not at all bullet-proof.\n\n```ruby\nheaders = ['path', 'lines','archived?']\nreport_file = Tempfile.new(['project_lines','.csv'])\n\nCSV.open(report_file.path, \"wb\") do |csv|\ncsv << headers\n   Project.all.each do |p|\n      output = `/opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} ls-tree --full-tree -r HEAD --name-only | xargs -I '$' /opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} show master:$ | wc -l`\n      csv << [p.full_path, Integer(output),p.archived?]\n   end; nil\nend\n\nreport_file.close\n```", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "88e1e1c1a5f37e28910fe2355743dc0908043e0a", "created_at": "2020-04-27 23:51:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-04-27 23:51:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 786106, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398211, "note": "Ultimate customer here: we compile this data periodically for use by the C-suite and even if the absolute numbers are representative of byte counts it is easy enough for me to use an estimate of bytes per line to get what I need.\n\nThe key is that I have nothing without absolute numbers.\n\nAlso, please consider the non-gitlab.com use case. Perhaps on our hosted instance we would be able to opt-in to a feature like this if it were available and we can decide for ourselves if the performance is acceptable.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2973161, "discussion_id": "f36cc6850ea7854dd35fe6e001bcc88a7c43e704", "created_at": "2020-06-19 15:58:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398220, "note": "Ultimate customer requesting this feature: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100001FRuq0\n\nCustomer would like to see number of lines of code per language excluding comments. \n\n/cc @npost", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "b9b84808e244584cd829ddf063757dbdca273385", "created_at": "2020-07-30 01:30:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398222, "note": "I am proposing in another issue to update an existing open source tool to add MBs of code to the reports.\n\nThis is related to helping customers (and prospects) be able to estimate the long term costs of security scanning solutions that charge by lines or MBs of code.\n\nIf the tool were a CI stage, but GitLab could receive and parse the report to a UI - then the compute for this would only performed for and paid by customers who want the counts.\n\nhttps://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/233018", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-07-31 00:05:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-08-31 13:21:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 164827, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "{}", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398228, "note": "The developer of scc responded to proposals to update the code as desired. Resultant code is in this blog article: https://acloudguru.com/blog/engineering/how-much-code-do-i-have-a-devsecops-story and being worked into this working example for GitLab CI CD: https://gitlab.com/guided-explorations/ci-cd-plugin-extensions/ci-cd-plugin-extension-scc", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-08-31 13:21:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398229, "note": "@DarwinJS the blocker for us on this feature is a line-counting capability in Gitaly.  I noticed that [SCC](https://github.com/boyter/scc) is written in Go, as Gitaly is.  Seems like that could be a very happy coincidence for us.  Did you happen to dive deep enough into SCC to have an opinion about how challenging it might be to integrate into Gitaly?\n\nNote for others: SCC is the line-counting software that Darwin recommended in his [blog post](https://acloudguru.com/blog/engineering/how-much-code-do-i-have-a-devsecops-story).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4512390, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-07 17:27:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-07 17:27:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398231, "note": "@djensen - I settled on SCC, rather than the long standing CLOC (Perl) due to it being written in a modern language and, if the author was not able to add features, the hopes that someone at GitLab would.\n\nI did dive into the internals, but don't know enough about Go Lang nor Gitaly to comment on whether the two would tango well.\n\nIt is lightning fast - which I noticed when processing www-gitlab-com.\n\nHave you thought of this as a sidekiq process - not sure how good it would be at doing per-commit differentials in Gitaly and doing the full repo in Gitaly may be a lot of excess compute if it does it every commit?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-08 13:21:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 13:21:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398232, "note": "Just like source control, you don't need to count all the lines of code in a repo every time.\n\nOnce you have a known count of lines at a specific commit, you can just track the diffs after that to increase/decrease line count for specific code and languages.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2973161, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-08 17:58:50 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 17:58:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398233, "note": "Yes I understand.\nWhat I'm trying to indicate is that the machinations to isolate net new lines and net removed lines of code may be more processing load than simply scheduling scc weekly?  Especially given the speed of scc.\n\nIf that might be true, the question is how timely do line counts need to be?\n\nI don't know the answer - just highlighting that if line counts don't need to be up to the minute, there might be a cheaper way to do it.  It would also possibly allow direct dependency on scc, rather than forking it.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-08 18:33:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 18:33:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398234, "note": "> It is lightning fast\n\nYes it is!  It crunches the entire gitlab repo in about 3 seconds on my machine ([results here](https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/2013041)).  Not bad.\n\n> how timely do line counts need to be?  I don't know the answer\n\nMe either, but let's guess it needs to be somewhere between monthly and daily.  (Hourly and commitly seem unnecessarily specific.)  Maybe we could start at monthly and see how it goes?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4512390, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-08 20:08:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 20:08:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398237, "note": "Or, maybe proponents could weigh in on the frequency.\n\nI feel a compromise might be:\n\n * maintain a _count per branch_ (which could be very helpful anyway)\n * trigger a count on the _first commit_ of any new branch (or make counting an option?)\n * update all branch counts _monthly_ (or, only branches that have a flag indicating that they should be counted)\n\nThat way, the regular update frequency is down to one count per project branch, per month, and Developers can force a new count by pushing a new branch (perhaps they might have a special case to have up-to-the-commit counts).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5791080, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-08 20:50:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-08 20:54:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 5791080, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": "{}", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398239, "note": "@mlockhart in the context of an MVC I think we need to stick with measuring the default branch only, because that's what the Repository Analytics page is currently doing ([example](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/graphs/master/charts)).\n\nOn the bright side, it seems the existing byte counts are being [updated on push](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/app/services/git/branch_push_service.rb#L54).  That makes me hopeful we could match that frequency with line counts.  So let's tentatively say the MVC would be updated pushly (instead of monthly like I proposed above).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4512390, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-08 21:22:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398241, "note": "In addition, I would like to understand uses cases for getting as fine as \"per branch\" code counts - what would someone use this for and how often?  If it is very occasional and/or for a bespoke purpose, they could just run scc themselves on a local copy.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "da067c13fb3fa873f3086f6e101c361fc8c7d661", "created_at": "2020-09-10 14:09:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-10 14:09:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398242, "note": "Starter customer requesting this feature in https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/172665", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "a6d634828d666969ace6f97fa2005ccae12a8d0a", "created_at": "2020-09-21 22:56:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2020-09-21 22:56:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398251, "note": "[OneDev](https://github.com/theonedev/onedev) calculates SLOC per languages and display the trends over time which is quite interesting. An example trends here:\n\nhttps://code.onedev.io/projects/react/stats/lines\n\nOne can hover mouse on the trend to show SLOC by day. The initial calculation for a large repo such as Linux takes about 30 min, and the result will be cached. Subsequent updates for new commits will be fairly fast based on cache. Below is the logic for calculation if someone is interested:\n\nhttps://github.com/theonedev/onedev/blob/main/server-core/src/main/java/io/onedev/server/infomanager/DefaultCommitInfoManager.java", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 7978344, "discussion_id": "ff175da6e12df7dae92e0ac849314529faf998b3", "created_at": "2021-01-12 14:30:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-01-12 14:30:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398253, "note": "how come I can still receive notifications even if I unsubscribed???", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2438931, "discussion_id": "36181666e5d8716749e77e66647442be95e59362", "created_at": "2021-02-07 18:19:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-02-07 18:26:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398254, "note": "@markglenfletcher please fix this ASAP.\nI am surprised Gitlab has no protection against this crap.\nYou will end up with people massively unsubscribing at best.\n\nP.S. This idiot keeps recreating accounts.\nA simple post factum ban will not work.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 920678, "discussion_id": "77603a87b4b3f20bdd32a0306f23d74e33fd6003", "created_at": "2021-02-07 18:22:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-21 12:57:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 920678, "type": null, "position": "{}", "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398280, "note": "A gitlab~2278657 ~\"self-managed\" ~customer is interested in this feature.\n\n* Link to request:  https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100001Eo1h0\n* Why interested: Want to report on all repos (instance-level) for languages used in repos for tools info\n* Current solution for this problem: Have to scrape every project to get languages used but not per-lines\n* Impact to the customer of not having this: Workarounds are nice but would be nice to get an instance-view instantly \n* PM to mention: @stkerr", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3288671, "discussion_id": "71c57bb879d7f04a6e5cb214ad632998019c4f34", "created_at": "2021-04-27 23:22:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-04-28 00:09:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398286, "note": "@sarahwaldner I actually think this should go to gitlab~10309854 , WDYT?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4156460, "discussion_id": "71c57bb879d7f04a6e5cb214ad632998019c4f34", "created_at": "2021-05-19 16:42:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398289, "note": "I think that makes a lot of sense @ogolowinski", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4447217, "discussion_id": "71c57bb879d7f04a6e5cb214ad632998019c4f34", "created_at": "2021-05-19 19:34:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 19:34:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398291, "note": "@ogolowinski Yep, I agree. Thanks for changing the group.\n\nThis is going to remain in the backlog as it is not our current focus and based on [details](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/17800#details) in the description, LOE will be quite high. Thanks.\n\ncc @cupini", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "71c57bb879d7f04a6e5cb214ad632998019c4f34", "created_at": "2021-05-19 20:16:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 20:16:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398299, "note": "An Ultimate customer is interested in this feature.\n* Link to request: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/00161000014HWYo\n* Why interested: They have a need to report LoC for their Apex repos.\n* Current solution for this problem: Have to scrape every project to get languages used but not per-lines\n* Impact to the customer of not having this: We have not found an adequate workaround\n* PM to mention: @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5213201, "discussion_id": "b9e87c53499f869fd4044e0562862914c7e6eb9d", "created_at": "2021-05-20 21:51:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-26 22:16:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398308, "note": "Thanks @bmiller1 the context is helpful.\n\nThis is in the %\"Backlog\" for awareness", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "b9e87c53499f869fd4044e0562862914c7e6eb9d", "created_at": "2021-05-26 22:16:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-26 22:16:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398310, "note": "@sarahwaldner FYI - Since Apex code is essentially extended Java with a few accompanying .xml metadata files, my customer was able to run `scc \u2013count-as cls:java` to interpret Apex .cls files as Java.  scc understands the comment and syntax structure of Java and was able to correctly return the LOC.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5213201, "discussion_id": "b9e87c53499f869fd4044e0562862914c7e6eb9d", "created_at": "2021-05-27 21:51:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398315, "note": "Ultimate customer requesting this feature: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0014M00001lc3Cc\n\nCustomer would like to calculate vulnerabilities per number of lines of code in order to measure issue/vulnerability density. \n\n/cc @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "8fa6477866010a9f40da3de9cc08155378f3b320", "created_at": "2021-06-14 19:45:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 21:56:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398323, "note": "Thanks @bgadberry \n\nIt seems like with the additional customer problem you need solved that there should be another issue for this...?\n\n> Customer would like to calculate vulnerabilities per number of lines of code in order to measure issue/vulnerability density.\n\nThis does not seem directly related. Correct me if I am wrong!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "8fa6477866010a9f40da3de9cc08155378f3b320", "created_at": "2021-06-14 21:56:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 21:56:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398328, "note": "@sarahwaldner You're correct. I was thinking the customer could calculate the metric manually once number of lines of code is made available. On second thought, I think we can calculate vulnerabilities per byte today. I'll report back if that suffices.\n\n@tmccaslin Is this vulnerability per byte/line of code metric something we've considered uncovering as part of SAST?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4788291, "discussion_id": "8fa6477866010a9f40da3de9cc08155378f3b320", "created_at": "2021-06-14 23:07:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-06-14 23:07:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398330, "note": "No it is not. That would be something for @matt_wilson to consider with the security dashboard.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5329074, "discussion_id": "8fa6477866010a9f40da3de9cc08155378f3b320", "created_at": "2021-06-14 23:16:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398336, "note": "@bgadberry The customer may be able to pull the necessary vulnerability count information from the existing GraphQL API. I've never heard a request for this functionality before and don't have any plans to include it in the Security Dashboard reports so pulling the data and creating their own reports is the best way forward if this is needed.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4708748, "discussion_id": "8fa6477866010a9f40da3de9cc08155378f3b320", "created_at": "2021-06-14 23:42:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 11:03:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398339, "note": "A premium/silver customer has requested for this feature over support ticket: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/220808 (internal link)\n\nIn particular they'd like an ability to query statistics about lines of code per detected language type, within each, and across all repositories under a group.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 7536567, "discussion_id": "ea3debf890d6cd7015d00ab72153364e0db87daf", "created_at": "2021-06-26 16:55:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-21 13:07:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 7536567, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-06-26 16:56:57 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398341, "note": "Another Premium customer is interested in this feature: [#223248](https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/223248)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 7272738, "discussion_id": "36bafcacfa72574f26ca315a9fefd80ffda3515a", "created_at": "2021-07-09 11:30:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-09 11:30:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398358, "note": "- SF: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000Ut0JyAAJ\n- ZD: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/254826\n\ngitlab~3207279 customer is interested in this feature.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5537005, "discussion_id": "616ce8f6438d2c4cdaef57312fdf0a16b35ca094", "created_at": "2021-12-21 18:42:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-12-21 18:42:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398383, "note": "A Premium customer is interested in this feature.\n\nZD: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/284853\n\nThe workaround mentioned [here](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/17800#note_332427265) unfortunately is hitting this error at the moment. I wonder if you have thoughts about this @lyle ?\n\n```\nTraceback (most recent call last):\n3: from (irb):3\n2: from lib/gitlab/git/repository.rb:85:in `path'\n1: from lib/gitlab/gitaly_client/storage_settings.rb:65:in `legacy_disk_path'\nGitlab::GitalyClient::StorageSettings::DirectPathAccessError (git disk access denied)\n```", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10051186, "discussion_id": "cbac8df0a1482bbc5633d8b60b4703cd603c7911", "created_at": "2022-04-26 08:09:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-26 22:56:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398387, "note": "Seems related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/350080. This was always a bit of a hack, and relied on manually executing `git` commands directly on the repo.\n\nYou could take (and modify) the same core:\n\n`/opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} ls-tree --full-tree -r HEAD --name-only | xargs -I '$' /opt/gitlab/embedded/bin/git -C #{p.repository.path} show master:$ | wc -l` and run it directly on the command line given a list of paths generated from `rails`\n\nThere's a bunch of caveats there though:\n- `master` is not necessarily the default branch name (we transitioned in GitLab to `main` some time ago)\n- It relies on counting the actual number of lines in a file `wc -l` and does it for every file in a repo. This will include licenses, headers, empty space and so on.\n\nThere are some additional thoughts in https://gist.github.com/mandiwise/dc53cb9da00856d7cdbb that have iterated on my approach from two years ago :sweat:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 786106, "discussion_id": "cbac8df0a1482bbc5633d8b60b4703cd603c7911", "created_at": "2022-04-26 22:56:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-26 22:56:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398388, "note": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/graphs/master/charts is that what it looks today? seems like a regression.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 882141, "discussion_id": "0a0135054322a86b6e195d79478bfbb08dee0078", "created_at": "2022-05-18 13:57:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-05-18 13:57:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398394, "note": "Yes, statistics counting total and per lang number of lines (in code files only) would be so nice and basic.  \nIgnore empty lines for me is optional. \n\nGet stats manually / locally for a git repo is not a problem. But this issue asks for the UI of gitlab. And this is what I need as well. \n\nhere a link to the current state: (older links above are expired)  \nhttps://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/graphs/master/charts \n\nHere a link for more advanced stats ambitions:  \nhttps://www.openhub.net/p/gitlab\n\nedit: btw: If this is not happening since 5 years because of performance issues, then just calculate it once a week and show the calculation date next to it. I guess most people do not need per hour stats about n lines of code. For me even once per month would be enough. (And thus could be used for gitlab#12104 as well)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 882141, "discussion_id": "74b77966a76e3a15bdac9b725fbe711050838c6a", "created_at": "2022-05-18 14:08:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-25 00:35:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 882141, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-05-18 14:13:37 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067398411, "note": "1900 seat gitlab~3207279 [Customer](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/00161000002xBZQ) is interested in this feature.\n\n- Priority: gitlab~21832708  priority::\n- Why interested: Customer is trying to find a way to report the total line of code across all GitLab projects.\n- Problem they are trying to solve: Customer has some internal teams who are trying trying to integrate tooling with GitLab to measure and track code coverage. There\u2019s a cost associated with expanding those other tools and without the ability to report the number of lines it's nearly impossible to estimate said cost.\n- Current solution for this problem: none\n- Impact to the customer of not having this: Inability to utilize other tools in conjunction with GitLab and thus slowing adoption of the platform.\n- Questions: Are they're any other workarounds for this, even at a manual reporting level? \n- PM to mention: @tlinz", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4748523, "discussion_id": "5f48dd95dd52df69c4baf7a6a9eb4e87843a5249", "created_at": "2022-06-14 14:49:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-15 13:42:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067399273, "note": "I promoted this to an epic so that I can add child issues to it.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "dafe4289f350a5aa4352a920764b3ea82d986f5f", "created_at": "2022-08-17 11:04:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 14:51:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067567426, "note": "Wow, the original issue disappeared from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/?sort=popularity&state=opened&first_page_size=20 :open_mouth: \n\nI know it is still #3 (as of 2022-08-17) on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/?sort=updated_desc&state=closed&first_page_size=20 :grinning: \n\n(Anyway thanks)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 100770, "discussion_id": "dafe4289f350a5aa4352a920764b3ea82d986f5f", "created_at": "2022-08-17 13:04:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 13:04:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1067613533, "note": "Oh, I wasn't aware of this consequence of a promotion to an epic. Thanks for documenting that it was #3.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "dafe4289f350a5aa4352a920764b3ea82d986f5f", "created_at": "2022-08-17 13:33:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-17 13:33:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1208305871, "note": "Thanks for the mention, I definitely missed that above and have shared it with my customer. \n\nThat is a really quick and neat tool.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4810535, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2022-12-13 23:01:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-12-13 23:01:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253590463, "note": "Great. That's good to hear. Thanks.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2023-01-26 10:48:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-26 10:48:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253516302, "note": "hey @tlinz apologies for just stumbling on this now, this should deliver on what we're needing. Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 8047255, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2023-01-26 10:16:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-26 10:16:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253571512, "note": "@tlinz correct, :smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 8047255, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2023-01-26 10:39:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-26 10:39:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253568537, "note": ":wave: @jhenkel1, I suppose by this, you mean the extension that @DarwinJS mentioned - right?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "7276d0dc31fcc8a1f0db8e16174b40bf36764c45", "created_at": "2023-01-26 10:38:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-26 10:38:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1496216143, "note": ":arrow_double_up: :heavy_plus_sign: :heavy_plus_sign: \n\nI wouldn't normally add a \"me too\" reply where an emoji reaction should be enough but in this case I think the comment deserves a lot of emphasis! **Whenever I am asked to quantify our code by language the request comes from management/executives who are looking for org-wide summary data they can supply to customers or auditors.**\n\nStepping back to meta considerations, I believe there is an underlying assumption in many GitLab features that gitlab.com users are mainly individuals and/or open source users while enterprise use cases are covered by private, self-hosted instances. We need to get past this assumption.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2973161, "discussion_id": "2caf6adcc2eccc7829098dbd829d3f1a80f41da4", "created_at": "2023-08-01 21:17:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 21:17:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1462211450, "note": "After analysis of the demands in all the comments in this issue and [further profound research](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/371038), I come to the conclusion that there are two main asks:\n1. Count the number of lines of code per contributor\n2. Count the number of lines of code per language\n\nOur [research](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/371038) showed that the first one carries a risk for being abused as a false measure of contribution to a project or a group. We have heard from some interviewees that they had negative experiences when managers had access to such data during their performance reviews. Given this potential of a significant negative impact of such a metric on some users compared to a nice-to-have positive impact for many users, we have decided not to implement this false metric of contribution. The fact that this metric is common among competitors of GitLab isn't a good enough reason to offer this, too, especially as there is evidence that offering this could be hurt users and employers of these users.   \n\nOur [research](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/371038) showed that the second one is desirable to get a quick impression of a project that one doesn't know, yet. For instance to quickly know if one has the skillset to contribute to the project. However, it has also shown that while many said they would like to have that it is really a nice-to-have feature and that users have alternative ways to get a quick impression of a project such as looking at the distribution of languages of the project and browsing the directories. Given the large list of other unmet needs that we still have in ~\"Category:Source Code Management\" we have decided not to prioritize this currently. \n\nI want to thank you all for your feedback. All this was very helpful for this research. And I hope for your understanding of my decision. :bow:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "fe5c63f6383da467af18fc39e7d6e250007a2547", "created_at": "2023-07-07 20:07:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 12:40:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1493749853, "note": "@tlinz - another important perspective is planning for \"Team Topologies\". If an organization can observe 15 languages of all types across 20 teams - they are going to have efficient teams in that area.\n\nIf an area has a tech stack that demands 25 languages for the identical code base / team structure - they will necessarily have either more people or longer cycle times when a headcount limited team must delve into parts of the codebase where they do not have familiarity.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 164827, "discussion_id": "fe5c63f6383da467af18fc39e7d6e250007a2547", "created_at": "2023-07-31 12:40:13 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 15:36:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1493646713, "note": "The critical use case that was missed in the analysis is the need to understand the overall landscape of your companys codebase, especially from security, tools licensing etc. point of view. So we need business level metrics for all code and individual repos. Looking at this from an individual repository perspective or developer perspective has been the bias in most of these discussions.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5476246, "discussion_id": "2caf6adcc2eccc7829098dbd829d3f1a80f41da4", "created_at": "2023-07-31 11:30:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-16 16:17:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1612960320, "note": "An aspect not covered by your research: providing data for C-suite and/or board level executive decision making based on relative balance of language usage in a large number of projects related to an organization's top-level group.\n\nFor example, I am asked to produce a set of metrics annually for all-up reporting to our board regarding the state of our codebases. This is one of those metrics.\n\nI could also imagine critical use cases related to standards or contract compliance.\n\nI've implemented workarounds so far but a system-supported metric here would be most welcome.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2973161, "discussion_id": "fe5c63f6383da467af18fc39e7d6e250007a2547", "created_at": "2023-10-20 19:46:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-20 19:46:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1562995086, "note": "The following ~customer is interested in this capability\n\n* Subscription: ~\"GitLab Ultimate\"\n* Product: ~\"self-managed\" + Dedicated\n* Link to request: https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000K8R8fAAF\n* Priority: ~\"customer priority::10\"\n* Why interested: Customer executives are looking for an instance-level amount of LoC stored by language to track their footprint and adoption with GitLab.\n* PM to mention: @derekferguson \n* CSM to mention: @jesswang_gitlab", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12577608, "discussion_id": "6cfed47ff371d07c91d61941f021b0c29c67285e", "created_at": "2023-09-18 09:16:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 10:42:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 12577608, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-09-18 10:42:48 UTC", "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1563133551, "note": "Hi @manuelgrabowski, \n\nPlease, check out my [comment here](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/8589#note_1462211450). Also PM top mention is @derekferguson.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "027dc9ef858dc5b36d557a67ed3aa3ebcd939f8e", "created_at": "2023-09-18 10:41:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 10:41:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1521546769, "note": "The following ~customer is interested in this capability \n\n- Subscription: ~\"GitLab Premium\"\n- Product: ~\"self-managed\"\n- Link to request: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/441666\n- Priority: ~\"customer priority::4\" \n- Why interested: Looking for an instance-level amount of LoC stored\n- CSM to mention: @sbrienen", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10339034, "discussion_id": "027dc9ef858dc5b36d557a67ed3aa3ebcd939f8e", "created_at": "2023-08-21 16:41:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 10:41:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1563134049, "note": "@jesswang_gitlab,\n\nPlease, check out my [comment here](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/8589#note_1462211450). Also PM top mention is @derekferguson.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "6cfed47ff371d07c91d61941f021b0c29c67285e", "created_at": "2023-09-18 10:41:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-18 10:41:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 584663, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1432953160, "note": "@kushalpandya this is the work we discussed this week to allow a work item epic to have issuable issue. Can you please fill in the details and add issues so I can schedule them? :pray_tone3:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "4dd57bc2a6fd6b3e137b7960ff3e58fd03b61d7a", "created_at": "2023-06-15 18:07:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 08:31:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433613323, "note": "@amandarueda I've added two ~backend issues here for now, chances are that we _might_ need a bit of ~frontend work too, i.e. ability to handle legacy Issues within Hierarchy Widget Tree View, I don't expect this effort to be a lot but we would be able to determine that this work will be needed only after we're done with backend implementation, until then, let's keep only these two issues, I'll create more as and when needed, wdyt? :slight_smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "4dd57bc2a6fd6b3e137b7960ff3e58fd03b61d7a", "created_at": "2023-06-16 08:31:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 13:30:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487108688, "note": "@amandarueda This would be significant work since table for Epics in DB is separate from table used to store Issues and Work Items.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "0b18ceba53d0ea8b02a92d5d1010488ae6f358bf", "created_at": "2023-07-25 12:59:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 12:59:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1482270372, "note": "@kushalpandya Can you let me know the cost of extending compatibility to [use case 3](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10851#use-cases)?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "0b18ceba53d0ea8b02a92d5d1010488ae6f358bf", "created_at": "2023-07-21 19:34:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 12:59:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487323928, "note": "Thanks @kushalpandya, could you define \"significant\" for me a bit? Would this be a 3+ milestone investment?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "0b18ceba53d0ea8b02a92d5d1010488ae6f358bf", "created_at": "2023-07-25 14:36:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 14:36:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1488766787, "note": "@amandarueda Yes this would be 3 milestone at the very least; first milestone spike, backend in the second, and frontend integration in the third.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "0b18ceba53d0ea8b02a92d5d1010488ae6f358bf", "created_at": "2023-07-26 11:46:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 14:25:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1555231796, "note": "FYI I completed https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/415547 but I've found we have a validation in place that prevents us from setting a work item epic as a parent. I had started a discussion [here](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/362203#note_1553349971) and created the issue https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/424896 to address it (added to this epic).\n\nAlso, I promoted the ~frontend tasks I created from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/415547#note_1537940828 and included them in this epic too.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "0d343681ff4233ade5151b38b5e35ae4bae86c83", "created_at": "2023-09-12 13:48:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-12 13:50:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 864661, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1604836294, "note": "Thanks @tlinz , just also understanding \ndoes this impact timelines on the work for Testing and Evaluation cc @oregand as well", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5749302, "discussion_id": "6569137e475e099a705317777294fe726092f0ae", "created_at": "2023-10-16 08:21:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-16 08:21:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1437012648, "note": "cc @alasch this is interesting external research for the work you're doing on code suggestions\n\ncc @NickHertz this is interesting in general for your work on AI features", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 9608331, "discussion_id": "8c25c694069b586e4328971e9aca6803a1adcc3c", "created_at": "2023-06-20 03:57:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-20 03:57:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1390824408, "note": "@sarahwaldner FYI UX is working on some guidance about how we move a feature from experiment -> beta -> GA: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/408400\n\ncc @jmandell @pedroms", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 9608331, "discussion_id": "a030f2b7ee29d953ed341c5b25cf1788acc07e90", "created_at": "2023-05-15 16:16:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-15 16:16:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1387614045, "note": "@timzallmann @m_gill @katiemacoy This is the epic where we will add issues and scope the work required to bring the GitLab Chat Bot to beta. I wrote some initial thoughts in the description that can change. \n\nThis epic is going to be tracked by leadership so we want the scope of work to be crisp (that is my job) but I need your help with the team to make sure that we have the right sub-epics/issues.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "a030f2b7ee29d953ed341c5b25cf1788acc07e90", "created_at": "2023-05-11 21:30:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-15 16:16:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1391203190, "note": "@katiemacoy @sarahwaldner I think:\n- We must run the UI through solution validation (at least 5 internal participants).\n- We should track the scoring during the research assuming we'll move forward with that concept.\n- We should write a clear statement about how confident we are about understanding the problem we're solving for our users.\n    - It would be really nice to have a sentence or two that explains where this confidence is being derived from.\n\n@pedroms what do you think?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "a030f2b7ee29d953ed341c5b25cf1788acc07e90", "created_at": "2023-05-15 21:15:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-15 21:15:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1391220604, "note": "@jmandell I think that list is perfectly reasonable and well-scoped to where we are right now!\n\nEngineering and I are still trying to figure out technically how we slice and dice this feature. @katiemacoy we will keep you clued in with us in lock step. Previously we had been thinking that we would add each use case one at a time, but it looks like we are actually going to add multiple at a time by enabling different models. This is good news :) Just means I am still a bit unsure how we scope the epics.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "a030f2b7ee29d953ed341c5b25cf1788acc07e90", "created_at": "2023-05-15 21:39:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-15 22:14:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1393133970, "note": "@m_gill This is a great plan. @tlinz What do you think?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "6560fc17d284f7b876bf2343c55477162950153e", "created_at": "2023-05-16 23:23:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-16 23:23:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1393965447, "note": "I like this proposal. Here are some thoughts. \n\n* We should probably add capabilities to collect feedback\n* In today's demo I got the impression that it may not be easy to create something that can generically catch the context that the user sees. Which is what I had understood the Universal Object access tool would do. I have to discuss this with @timzallmann to understand it better. \n* We could reduce the scope of VectorQARetrieval tool to documentation only for the beta release and have ask a question about this repo be done by the SCM team if we find that distribution of work could scale well. \n* Are you saying the WebIDE chat extension is part of Beta or just the API that would enable that, @m_gill. In the spirit of keeping work pieces small I would keep it out of scope and create a separate issue.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "6560fc17d284f7b876bf2343c55477162950153e", "created_at": "2023-05-17 11:23:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-17 11:23:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1392312276, "note": "@sarahwaldner from a development perspective, this is what I see as Beta:\n- [In progress] Ability to switch tooling (IE: A prompt comes in, and we detect where it gets routed)\n  - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/121122+ \n- 2 tools are available to switch to, and respond in a Beta fashion based on the prompts they support:\n  - [In progress] Universal Object access tool (Explain this block of code, Write tests for this block of code)\n  - VectorQARetrieval Tool (Answer this question from our documentation, Ask a question about this repository)\n    - [In progress] Embeddings will be needed https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10616+ \n- Documentation to reflect how other teams can contribute new tooling\n  - Teams are unblocked at this point\n- API for Chat Interface, which will be used for integrations such as IDE extensions (Integrated with toggle support)\n- System prompt is in place to enforce guardrails on what the Chat can and cannot answer\n- Moderation is in place to prevent offensive prompts/responses \n  - Not part of this MVC - \u201cReport answers as offensive\u201d functionality\n- [In progress] Basic UI\n- [In progress] Memory, across sessions (switching pages or devices)\n  - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/410521+", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4554599, "discussion_id": "6560fc17d284f7b876bf2343c55477162950153e", "created_at": "2023-05-16 13:19:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-18 11:41:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4554599, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-05-18 11:41:28 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1394009327, "note": "@tlinz just the API that would enable that. I'm aligned with [this larger plan](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10219#note_1393118339), where WebIDE chat should be Phase 2, but still done within the quarter.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4554599, "discussion_id": "6560fc17d284f7b876bf2343c55477162950153e", "created_at": "2023-05-17 11:37:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-18 02:30:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1420511785, "note": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-data/product-analytics/-/issues/1232+", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "04389db4e66ed66a332464009e3f04dfc3c5ecef", "created_at": "2023-06-06 17:01:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-06 17:01:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422449304, "note": "@sarahwaldner, \n\n> > Chat is available everywhere in the product\n\n> Does this include the Web IDE? I do not think that it does. Please clarify this.\n\nSorry that was not precise. I will change it to: Chat can be opened anywhere on the GitLab Web page. (Excluding the WebIDE)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "f75d5a41b11fd5d816943c6c83d74e3e6915144c", "created_at": "2023-06-07 17:05:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 17:05:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422263279, "note": "Hi @tlinz :wave_tone1: \n\nIn the description under [Overall Scope](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10550#overall-scope) the first bullet point is:\n\n> Chat is available everywhere in the product\n\nDoes this include the Web IDE? I do not think that it does. Please clarify this.\n\nAdditionally, also under [Overall Scope](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10550#overall-scope) I see that the first iteration will enable:\n\n>>>\nChat answers questions relating to\n\n* code the user sees\n* issue the user sees\n* how to use GitLab\n* recent context from chat history (i.e. Conversational Chat enabled)\n>>>\n\nPlease separate this out into it's own section called **Use Cases that will be enabled** and word these statements using the terms that leadership had been referring to them as. The goal is for someone to be able to look at this epic and immediately understand that in the first iteration the following features will be possible:\n\n1. Explain this code\n2. Ask questions about an issue = > _This is new. Please explain what this is since this has not been a feature that we have been broadly discussing for the last couple months_\n3. Conversational Chat\n4. Ask questions of docs\n\nFinally, marketing needs a 2 week aheads up (to the best of your ability) prior to the release of the first iteration. \n\ncc @timzallmann @m_gill", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "f75d5a41b11fd5d816943c6c83d74e3e6915144c", "created_at": "2023-06-07 15:14:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 17:05:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422462628, "note": "@sarahwaldner, I think we need to educate the leadership that the scope of what we aim to deliver is much larger than bringing our \"legacy\" AI experiments together in one place. \"Explain code\" is only one of many questions you can ask in the context of code the user sees. I added a screenshot from the slide deck to address this.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "f75d5a41b11fd5d816943c6c83d74e3e6915144c", "created_at": "2023-06-07 17:13:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 17:13:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422486037, "note": "@sarahwaldner and @laurenaalves, I think we are probably less than 2 weeks away from a releasable first iteration. @timzallmann can confirm. In fact, we hope that we can have something demoable today or tomorrow, so we can understand how well it works and what is missing for a releasable functionality. I also have requests from @cherryhan to create something that we can demo to a large prospect on Wednesday as we might not win them if we can't show AI capabilities that go beyond code suggestions. \n\n@laurenaalves, once we have that first prototype working we will share it with you. I can work on a blog post. What else do you need from me? Please, check out", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "f75d5a41b11fd5d816943c6c83d74e3e6915144c", "created_at": "2023-06-07 17:34:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 17:37:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 10822493, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-06-07 17:37:15 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422558431, "note": "@tlinz \n\n> \"Explain code\" is only one of many questions you can ask in the context of code the user sees. I added a screenshot from the slide deck to address this.\n\nYes I saw that screenshot however in the description of this epic you specifically list these use cases:\n\n>>>\nChat answers questions relating to\n\n* code the user sees\n* issue the user sees\n* how to use GitLab\n* recent context from chat history (i.e. Conversational Chat enabled)\n>>>\n\nHow should I be interpreting the description? \n\nPlease make sure that the start/end dates on the [first iteration epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10675) show that this will release in ~2 weeks. Right now the end date is June 9th. Thank you.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "f75d5a41b11fd5d816943c6c83d74e3e6915144c", "created_at": "2023-06-07 18:46:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 18:46:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3796140, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-06-07 18:46:29 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1432659564, "note": "https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10675#note_1432658681", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "f75d5a41b11fd5d816943c6c83d74e3e6915144c", "created_at": "2023-06-15 14:35:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-15 14:35:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1437568945, "note": "Thanks for sharing! This was an interesting read and can help put our own learnings into perspective.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 7351507, "discussion_id": "8c25c694069b586e4328971e9aca6803a1adcc3c", "created_at": "2023-06-20 10:34:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-20 10:34:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1432665862, "note": "Hi @katiemacoy and others, here is an interesting research that touches on [What parts of development workflow make sense for AI tools](https://stackoverflow.co/labs/developer-sentiment-ai-ml/#h2-what-parts-of-development-workflow-make-sense-for-ai-tools) and also on [Trust in accuracy](https://stackoverflow.co/labs/developer-sentiment-ai-ml/#h2-trust-in-the-accuracy-of-ai-output).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "8c25c694069b586e4328971e9aca6803a1adcc3c", "created_at": "2023-06-15 14:38:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-20 15:02:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 822061, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1190281519, "note": "Thanks for creating this @amandarueda :star2: !\n\nSome comments/questions \n- Start and end date (including inheritance) is missing\n- Roadmap color is missing\n- Milestones are not part of epics today, so it's not a blocker\n- Are there specific gaps with todos and notifications? I believe that a lot has been built out for Tasks already.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "46c472121ec6efb0a9c80f5f7e5c768111501414", "created_at": "2022-11-29 22:09:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-29 22:09:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1258499422, "note": "@amandarueda Y'all made a ton of progress toward epic migration by building OKRs. Is there an iteration path that allow is to have an opt-in/beta experience for new epics powered by work items without migrating old data ahead of Q3? What would be the bare minimum MVC for an epic-like experience that allows parenting of issues at the project level?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6fd70846d24cfd0f32b0f8a32ec87043754c887b", "created_at": "2023-01-31 03:20:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-01 16:20:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1611196624, "note": "> Can we ignore them? Is this behind a feature flag?\n\n@felipe_artur Yes, we could just ignore them and no this is not behind a feature flag, anyone could use the GraphQL API to create a work item of type Epic. We could just ignore them and then when the sync mechanism is implemented some of them won't show up in the legacy epics and while that might be alright, perhaps we should reduce the impact of this by putting creation and listing behind a feature flag", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 8110537, "discussion_id": "644d8011ed79e4817cb39481e1ae3e595482abb1", "created_at": "2023-10-19 17:49:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 17:49:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1611198180, "note": "Yes, I can do this, @jprovaznik. I think this can potentially reduce the impact of a single direction migration from epics into work items in the future", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 8110537, "discussion_id": "233b12f118489da84c8a0b3f6844130e48e1a816", "created_at": "2023-10-19 17:50:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 17:50:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1261616941, "note": "@mushakov interesting idea. What would be the goal of the early MVC? To obtain feedback with the intention of acting on it prior to GA?\n\nI'd definitely like to work with @uhlexsis on what we could consider the minimal version of the feature-set, then I can get back to you on whether it is feasible, pros/cons, etc. Understanding the goal of the effort would be helpful though.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "6fd70846d24cfd0f32b0f8a32ec87043754c887b", "created_at": "2023-02-01 16:20:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-01 16:20:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1261634345, "note": "@amandarueda The goals would be to:\n- Get feedback earlier \n- Unlock value for customers that won't use epics today because of the limitation of being group only", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6fd70846d24cfd0f32b0f8a32ec87043754c887b", "created_at": "2023-02-01 16:30:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-01 16:44:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1261636659, "note": "Also, I am definitely aware that there would be cons and tradeoffs to be considered! Let me know your thoughts on whether there's an approach here that is feasible and would provide enough benefits.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6fd70846d24cfd0f32b0f8a32ec87043754c887b", "created_at": "2023-02-01 16:31:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-01 16:45:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433111137, "note": "@mushakov I don't follow, do you mean the POC drawer on the listing page? I wasn't planning on implementing that until after epic migration.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "6cf1bcff87174e886287aea4837109c844bbad27", "created_at": "2023-06-15 20:56:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-15 20:56:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1181530268, "note": "@mushakov @uhlexsis @kushalpandya I created this epic to specifically track the activities required for migrating Epics to work items. Please lmk if anything is missing.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "46c472121ec6efb0a9c80f5f7e5c768111501414", "created_at": "2022-11-22 14:37:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-29 22:09:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1198474235, "note": "Thanks so much for the review and feedback @mushakov! Updates have been made. Regarding todos and notifications, it's my understanding that they are feature-based, so we need to create the triggering of the event in the new infrastructure. I'll leave them on the list for now just so we can ensure we have those covered for epics.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "46c472121ec6efb0a9c80f5f7e5c768111501414", "created_at": "2022-12-06 16:28:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-31 03:16:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1232982136, "note": "@amandarueda @gweaver I added https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/8308+ to this table since it is critical path for epics moving to work items :pencil:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "14090dfdff2ddf52ac3c520c11bdcb8d6f1d1781", "created_at": "2023-01-09 22:18:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-11 15:48:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1261660109, "note": "Thanks @mushakov! I've created https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9815 to track the discussion. I'll get back to you when I have something to share.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "6fd70846d24cfd0f32b0f8a32ec87043754c887b", "created_at": "2023-02-01 16:46:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-01 21:28:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1432954426, "note": "@kushalpandya I've moved all work which blocks epic migration to this parent. Can you please review and see if we're missing anything?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "d8057f13c86dd97d88438e23e96776bc670b477e", "created_at": "2023-06-15 18:09:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 08:13:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433059500, "note": "@amandarueda @nickbrandt that we should consider as part of changing the experience for epics is if we should have something that tells users about the new drawer. Have ya'll discussed this yet? What are your thoughts?\n\ncc: @gweaver since we will likely need something similar for issues and @jackib for awareness.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6cf1bcff87174e886287aea4837109c844bbad27", "created_at": "2023-06-15 19:59:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 14:57:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433175319, "note": "@amandarueda what i mean is that with work items the experience for epics will change. The UI will look different, some items might have changed locations, and you potentially will be introducing new functionality for epics. When we launched Tasks, we implemented this : https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/366687", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6cf1bcff87174e886287aea4837109c844bbad27", "created_at": "2023-06-15 21:58:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-15 21:58:16 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433179594, "note": "Ah, got it, thanks @mushakov. Below is my plan, I'll open a rollout issue to document, I welcome your feedback!\n\n- TBD: Offer users a toggle between experiences. This is a **maybe** based on LOE, but is possible since we'll maintain the existing epics tables.\n- Create a blog post explaining the change, highlighting the improvements available and those to come.\n- Pop a banner for the first 45 days which links to the blog post.\n- Add something to the [what's new](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/whats-new.html) menu, linking to the blog post.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "6cf1bcff87174e886287aea4837109c844bbad27", "created_at": "2023-06-15 22:05:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 14:56:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433181259, "note": "@amandarueda I think that @jackib will have a good perspective here since she was part of the Growth team.  \n\nAlso, take a look at the work that the Service Desk team is planning for toggling experiences. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/414313. You might be able to re-use some of it :heart_eyes_cat:.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6cf1bcff87174e886287aea4837109c844bbad27", "created_at": "2023-06-15 22:08:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-15 22:10:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433581618, "note": "Thanks @amandarueda! I see the order of items in this Epic is looking correct and all we're missing is some issues in child Epics so I'll create and add those. :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "d8057f13c86dd97d88438e23e96776bc670b477e", "created_at": "2023-06-16 08:13:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 13:43:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1438489558, "note": "@amandarueda A good model could be the navigation. Nick worked on that so you could check with him on how the rollout went and what communication seemed most effective.\n\nI hope that we will have several rounds of internal and external feedback that we can use to inform the best rollout plan - based on feedback we could do more or less than what you have planned so far.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4089849, "discussion_id": "6cf1bcff87174e886287aea4837109c844bbad27", "created_at": "2023-06-20 18:11:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-20 18:25:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487458818, "note": "@amandarueda @kushalpandya I'm asking for confirmation from ~\"group::project management\" engineers, but I think we'll be done with https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/8771+ and https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/8778+ in the 16.4/16.5 range (sep 22/oct 22). \n\nAre there things that ~\"group::product planning\" can be working on in parallel to help accelerate the migration? Things that come to mind:\n\n - https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/8194+\n - https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7459+\n - https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10845+ (more context/discussion around this here -- https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9673#note_1427378890)\n - Conducting a spike to establish the implementation path for the migration.\n - ...What other things are on the riskier side that we should mitigate sooner rather than later?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "11e164faee1d4f9402fdb8b70e0afc0eac16988a", "created_at": "2023-07-25 15:34:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 15:51:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487488813, "note": "Hey @gweaver thanks for the timeline! We haven't expressed that we are blocked by the group level work items, I think the motivation of the request was to ensure the migration schedule was still valid based on remaining work.\n\nWe've started spiking on linked items, but cannot move much else forward since we're down 2 engineers. All of this to say, we definitely have enough work to do. :sweat_smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "11e164faee1d4f9402fdb8b70e0afc0eac16988a", "created_at": "2023-07-25 15:51:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 11:45:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1612556029, "note": "Makes sense. Maybe we should bring this to the next sync call.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 426128, "discussion_id": "644d8011ed79e4817cb39481e1ae3e595482abb1", "created_at": "2023-10-20 14:50:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-20 14:50:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1613012841, "note": "Actually, just realized that because epic policies only exist at the group level, there is no way to create an issue or work item with an epic issue type at the project level. So no need to add another feature flag since the only way to create an epic work item type is at the group level and if the `namespace_level_work_items` is enabled", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 8110537, "discussion_id": "233b12f118489da84c8a0b3f6844130e48e1a816", "created_at": "2023-10-20 21:03:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-20 21:03:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1610524119, "note": "> So we could add any missing attributes/mapping to widgets iteratively after starting syncing epic with the work item\n\nI agree with doing it incrementally too, although it seems that widgets are not far from being ready\n\n- Color :x: (will not be present in WI)\n- Start/Due Dates :x: (spike scheduled for %\"16.6\")\n- Labels :white_check_mark:\n- Notifications :white_check_mark: \n- Todos :white_check_mark: \n- Award Emoji :white_check_mark:\n- Notes :white_check_mark: \n- Linked epics :white_check_mark: \n- Hierarchy :white_check_mark: \n\nEach widget will present its own difficulties though, so starting with a bare record sounds reasonable to me.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "04276a4ce19719f160f67830a8a794899173b5dd", "created_at": "2023-10-19 11:14:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 11:14:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1609248791, "note": "During the sync-up call today, it was mentioned that before we start syncing epic's work item record, it would be good to have all needed columns created.  I thought steps for implementing syncing would be something like:\n\n* start creating/updating work item record for each newly created epic (behind a feature flag enabled for testing only). Because work items use widgets, we would sync only bare minimum - title, description, confidentiality flag, state\n* sync work item's iid + namespace id when epic is moved\n* iteratively work on syncing additional attributes - these would be synced to work item's widget data (color, dates, )\n* all of above is done behind a feature flag enabled only for testing group. When we have all syncing logic done and it's verified, we roll out this flag so syncing is done for all new epics\n* once verified that syncing works as expected for new epics, we proceed with a bg migration which backfills/creates synced work item record also for existing epics\n* handle associations - we may need to rather move these than duplicate to mirrored object because we need to preserve note/label references, so we may need to support loading these either through legacy record or work item record depending on migration status\n\nSo we could add any missing attributes/mapping to widgets iteratively after starting syncing epic with work item, but it's entirely possible that this was already discussed before and a different approach would be better - I'd live to know more details.\n\n/cc @engwan @mcelicalderonG @kushalpandya @felipe_artur @egrieff WDYT?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1642716, "discussion_id": "04276a4ce19719f160f67830a8a794899173b5dd", "created_at": "2023-10-18 16:03:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-18 18:08:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1609417902, "note": "@jprovaznik Yes, agree. I was also with this same thought, I think we don't need to block the sync because of fields that only exist on epics. We could do it incrementally.\n\n> start creating/updating work item record for each newly created epic (behind a feature flag enabled for testing only). Because work items use widgets, we would sync only bare minimum - title, description, confidentiality flag, state  \n\nWe should also include deletion sync within this phase to avoid stale records on DB. As the epic work item type already exists I think this task is ready for development.   \n\n> sync work item's iid + namespace id when epic is moved  \n\nI think we cannot move/clone epics between namespaces, is this possible on the work-item side?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 426128, "discussion_id": "04276a4ce19719f160f67830a8a794899173b5dd", "created_at": "2023-10-18 18:08:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-18 18:52:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 426128, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-18 18:52:22 UTC", "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1609975415, "note": "> We should also include deletion sync within this phase to avoid stale records on DB. As the epic work item type already exists I think this task is ready for development.\n\nGood point :thumbsup: \n\n> I think we cannot move/clone epics between namespaces, is this possible on the work-item side?\n\nYou are right, on epic side this is not possible.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1642716, "discussion_id": "04276a4ce19719f160f67830a8a794899173b5dd", "created_at": "2023-10-19 06:05:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 06:05:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1609990043, "note": "I agree it would be easiest to put creation/listing of \"Epic\" work items behind a feature flag until syncing is completed, if possible.\n\nIdeally we would allow access to \"Epic\" work items through work items API in the last phase of migration, when the underlying \"Epic\" work item is used as SSOT (when we ignore attributes on Epic record and delegate everything to the work item record) - then perhaps we could avoid bi-directional syncing?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1642716, "discussion_id": "233b12f118489da84c8a0b3f6844130e48e1a816", "created_at": "2023-10-19 06:22:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 17:50:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1610753515, "note": "@mcelicalderonG   \n\n> One of the steps of the migration already requires us to create a record in the issues table for each of the epics we have in the epics table. Before this happens, we should probably already have the sync mechanism in place? That way updates to epics on the legacy interface would create the record in the issues table.\n\nYes. Having the sync before running the migration also saves us from having to create epic work-items which are already up to date.\n\n> For those work items created during this period where we still don't have a sync mechanism, would we need to migrate/sync with those in the epics table after the sync mechanism is implemented?  \n\nCan we ignore them? Is this behind a feature flag? If so can we could roll it out to customers after the sync is in place or even later?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 426128, "discussion_id": "644d8011ed79e4817cb39481e1ae3e595482abb1", "created_at": "2023-10-19 13:22:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 13:22:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1609280911, "note": "Following up on the sync discussion question\n\n### Should we prevent users from creating/listing epics through the GraphQL API? (Currently the only place where this is possible)\n\nMaybe this is not necessary, but we just need to be aware of what could happen with those epics that are created on the issues table before the syncing mechanism is implemented.\n\n- One of the steps of the migration already requires us to create a record in the issues table for each of the epics we have in the epics table. Before this happens, we should probably already have the sync mechanism in place? That way updates to epics on the legacy interface would create the record in the issues table.\n- Right now we allow creating/listing work items of type epic through the GraphQL work items API.\n- For those work items created during this period where we still don't have a sync mechanism, would we need to migrate/sync with those in the epics table after the sync mechanism is implemented? We could argue that \"no\", since the GraphQL API is still in alpha? I guess the sync mechanism would still create records for those work item epics that get updated in the future. The only ones left behind in the legacy interface would be those that were created on the issues table during this period and never got updated after the sync mechanism is implemented.\n- What we could do to prevent what's described above is to prevent the creation of epics in the issues table behind a feature flag. This way we limit the impact this could potentially have in customers. But again, maybe note really necessary and what I'd like to get your opinion on.\n\n/cc @engwan @mcelicalderonG @kushalpandya @felipe_artur @egrieff @donaldcook WDYT?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 8110537, "discussion_id": "644d8011ed79e4817cb39481e1ae3e595482abb1", "created_at": "2023-10-18 16:26:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-10-19 13:22:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 657742, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 8110537, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-10-18 16:26:30 UTC", "namespace_id": 9970}
+{"id": 1358911278, "note": "@mle thanks for moving this under the framework epic.\n\nIn the recent weeks we've been structuring our work and designing for the chat interface in pieces (e.g. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/407175 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/407147), instead of holistically taking all the known requirements into account. This former is natural, given the work velocity and how that influences us to focus on the closest iteration.\n\nTo counter this, one possible way is to design the chat interface as if it was a [UX theme](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/ux/product-design/ux-roadmaps/). We can adapt the [UX theme issue template](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/UX%20Theme.md?plain=1) to this epic and fill it out as best we can. This will force us to think and design holistically and in more abstract terms. There are a few challenges of applying the UX theme approach to something like this:\n1. The solution will serve multiple JTBDs. We can try to generalize the \u201ctheme statement\u201d and some of the [JTBD terminology](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/ux/jobs-to-be-done/#jtbd-terminology) but then list the more concrete main jobs and small jobs that could leverage this solution.\n2. We've already decided on a direction for the solution (chat interface), so the \u201csolution-agnostic\u201d aspect would not be applicable here. This solution will address a generalized problem.\n\nIf you agree, can you please adapt this epic's description to fit the UX theme approach as best you can? Else, what would be your preferred approach?\n\n---\n\nThree concrete first steps that we could take here:\n1. Audit existing designs that you and I have worked on for a chat UI (maybe other designers too).\n2. Collect examples across the industry of how others have solved this (final designs and, ideally, designs guidelines).\n3. Use this information to fill the \u201cRequirements\u201d section of the UX theme template.\n\nWe have already done a bit of these points, but not in an intentional and formalized way. If you agree, we can create specific issues for points 1 and 2, so that the ongoing work and assignments are clear.\n\ncc @katiemacoy @jmandell", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 626804, "discussion_id": "52caa81752dd906af8a885511c203f68dc7872e7", "created_at": "2023-04-19 14:03:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 14:03:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1347204395, "note": "@wayne that's a good question. I think discussion and ~\"workflow::design\" is under way but I was under the impression that building an interactive chat with follow-up questions wasn't a priority for the first features being rolled out.\n\n@tlinz @timzallmann @mle care to weigh in? thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 853414, "discussion_id": "998ea4b041116647417634cbf7ddb8a95ea8bdf7", "created_at": "2023-04-10 18:36:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-10 18:36:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1364574170, "note": "That's a good thinking, @andrei.zubov. I would suggest taking a look at all the issues attached to this Epic - there's already work on the unification happening and I would suggest taking a look at those. We (Source Code) plan on extending [Explain Code with the continuous chat functionality](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/117674) in the coming days. The Global Search team is working hard on the Ask Tanuki. After the first production launch for the latter, there will be work on consolidating the interfaces.\n\n/cc @sarahwaldner", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3199302, "discussion_id": "1ec59fa075db6dc8178c23f4fd4a3e2af7f747b2", "created_at": "2023-04-24 14:16:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-24 14:16:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1364376642, "note": "Hi everyone! \nJust a headsup - we're working on https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10359+ and it looks like in a long-run it would make sense to have a unified user experience around all chat-like functionalities in GitLab.\n\nSpecifically it would be great to have the following features:\n1. Unified chat UI that looks and feels the same on different areas/pages of GitLab\n2. Context awareness: ideally we should be able to provide the neccessary context to the bot on any given page, for example, if the user is on the CI editor page of the project, ideally there should be a way to provide this context to the bot and further finetune it to the use-case expected in this scenario\n3. Providing integrated quick actions, for example - use a particular code snippet in the editor, or send a selected code block from the editor to the chat bot for explanation.\n\nDo you have anything from the above on your radar? What would be the best way to align our efforts in this area?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12455340, "discussion_id": "1ec59fa075db6dc8178c23f4fd4a3e2af7f747b2", "created_at": "2023-04-24 12:41:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-24 14:16:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 12455340, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-04-24 12:42:30 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1424396555, "note": "Thank you @tlinz I have communicated to leadership that we will have estimated dates for all of these epics by the end of this week. cc @timzallmann @m_gill", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "50e46b76ed9e53d6ebd83471be8e240920a44e6a", "created_at": "2023-06-08 21:58:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-08 21:58:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1368644616, "note": "@timzallmann, regarding\n\n> should we start a prompt collection here - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/dev-subdepartment/ai-dev-promptcollection/-/tree/main/code ?\n\nI think it would be helpful to establish a mechanism that lets us test the performance of different prompt designs like proposed in https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10233+.\n\nHow about rather than collecting the prompts in a repo, we collect them in Sisense where they can live together with the performance metrics? On the other hand if we can make the repo the SSoT for all prompts and where we would edit the prompts and Sisense the SSoT for prompt performance, that might be helpful too.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-26 13:08:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-26 13:08:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1369174171, "note": "Hi @gabe, I am not sure there is overlap. At least until you raised the question, I saw these as fundamentally different use cases. The chat interface here is for interactions between one user and the AI - like a personal assistant. Think of it as a 1:1 chat with a co-worker that knows what you are looking at. \n\nIn _summarize issue discussion_ the AI is like a co-worker that contributes to a discussion. \n\nI can see use cases, where you would rather have summary created just for yourself. I suppose one could still use _summarize issue discussion_ but simply not submit the reply. Since we are establishing the chat in different places (ideally all across the platform) it might make sense to of to summarize a discussion ALSO in the chat but NOT ONLY in the chat. \n\ncc: @lvanc / @mle", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "1148f34da1ad5876def5ce387c596521dfab2a48", "created_at": "2023-04-26 16:57:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-26 16:57:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1368646062, "note": "@lvanc @tlinz Is there overlap here with how we've implemented https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10344+ from a UX perspective? In this epic, we propose the chat interface be the primary mechanism for \"Summarize all comments and threads on a page.\" Where is the overlap or duplication, if any?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "1148f34da1ad5876def5ce387c596521dfab2a48", "created_at": "2023-04-26 13:09:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-26 16:57:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1341173437, "note": "@timzallmann @tlinz agree! We have to ensure that the use of a chat interface is warranted and rooted in actual user needs, not just because we assume it would be helpful.\n\n@tlinz also, thank you for creating this and the other \u201ccommon\u201d epics, I will give them some attention tomorrow :bow:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 626804, "discussion_id": "9bed319a8d8998ac1bcd9dfd870e9b6b95fe81c7", "created_at": "2023-04-04 18:04:06 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-04 18:04:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1336777408, "note": "I love that idea and :100: that we should get start defining it with UX.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "9bed319a8d8998ac1bcd9dfd870e9b6b95fe81c7", "created_at": "2023-03-31 12:05:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-04 18:04:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1358054016, "note": "For the record, I'll move any implementation epics/issues related to the feature \"Explain the code\" to https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10218+", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "3d095d1753014821ae87917d956ff0c7cff82baa", "created_at": "2023-04-19 05:05:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 05:05:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1342950083, "note": "@pedroms I haven't had a chance to look over @alasch's research plan but perhaps this could be something to keep in mind as that's being done?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "9bed319a8d8998ac1bcd9dfd870e9b6b95fe81c7", "created_at": "2023-04-05 21:01:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-05 21:01:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1346759439, "note": "Should this have the label ~\"wg-ai-integration-prioritized-prototype\" since work is active on it?\n\ncc @hbenson @m_gill", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4708570, "discussion_id": "998ea4b041116647417634cbf7ddb8a95ea8bdf7", "created_at": "2023-04-10 13:29:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-10 18:36:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1356054887, "note": "@pedroms @katiemacoy  @tlinz @mle I think it makes sense to pull all of these framework-oriented issues into the work that Pedro and Katie are doing. They'll be the hub for this type of AI/UX coordination where they'll be the DRIs that will bring in and/or work collaboratively with other Groups to ensure all needs are covered and consistently utilized.\n\ncc/ @tauriedavis @vkarnes @hbenson", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "3d095d1753014821ae87917d956ff0c7cff82baa", "created_at": "2023-04-17 20:50:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-17 20:50:29 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1352026251, "note": "@tlinz @mle I'd like to understand what is your team's relationship with these \u201cAI Common\u201d epics, so that we can define responsibilities and set expectations. The reason I'm asking is that the UX team assigned to the AI Integration effort (see https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10269) is going to start working on a broader [AI UX framework](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10334) (for now, me and @katiemacoy). A lot of what's documented and being worked on in these \u201cAI Common\u201d epics overlaps with or is duplicative of that work that we are starting. I agree with the problems that these epics want to solve, and they are part of what a UX framework will achieve.\n\nWhat I'm asking here is similar to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/406810#note_1350316883\n\nSome specific questions:\n1. What's @mle capacity to drive some of these aspects forward and contribute to the UX framework in a holistic way that takes into account multiple use cases (and not just Source Code's use cases)? Can we rely on him as a regular contributor, alongside me and @katiemacoy?\n2. Can/should we repurpose these epics and move them under https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10334+?\n\nIt's been challenging to understand how each team is working, structuring their work, and how wide they are thinking. It feels like everyone is doing this differently. My goal is to get some clarity and understand your point-of-view :open_hands: \n\nIf a sync call would be more productive, happy to do that, feel free to add some time to my calendar (tomorrow, Friday is okay for me).\n\ncc @jmandell", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 626804, "discussion_id": "3d095d1753014821ae87917d956ff0c7cff82baa", "created_at": "2023-04-13 18:48:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-14 04:35:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1348825057, "note": "Yes, I see this as the epic that defines the goal and that we can use to discuss experience and design. From this we identify iterations to get there. The iterations are the ones that we work on. The first iteration does not allow a chat with follow up questions. (So technically, it is not a chat, yet.)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "998ea4b041116647417634cbf7ddb8a95ea8bdf7", "created_at": "2023-04-11 19:03:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-11 19:03:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1348266794, "note": "@tlinz, @mle should we add the video to the description? :thinking:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3199302, "discussion_id": "99bf4be4fa04c2f12ebd4572abd11d37176088b4", "created_at": "2023-04-11 12:51:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-11 12:51:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1348149002, "note": "I have recorded [a short video walkthrough](https://www.youtube.com/embed/ktEmQK2WyH4) of the current chat implementation for the \"Explain the Code\" feature", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3199302, "discussion_id": "99bf4be4fa04c2f12ebd4572abd11d37176088b4", "created_at": "2023-04-11 11:44:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-11 12:51:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1348830135, "note": "Hi @dmishunov, this is really very cool :heart:. @mle, I assume this does not represent a final design. Might it be better to create a child issue Iteration 2: Simple endless chat. What do you both think?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "99bf4be4fa04c2f12ebd4572abd11d37176088b4", "created_at": "2023-04-11 19:09:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-11 20:56:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1369295832, "note": "Not that you asked, but this came up in my emails so... :grin:  I agree with this version of \"prompts\"\n\n\\>In my mind, selecting different standard tasks would not be part of the chat itself but be part of [initiating the chat](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10221#proposal \"[AI Common] Interface to initiate interaction with AI for use cases that concern selectable text\")\n\nTo me, this is more or less what we're doing now. We're sprinkling, or planning to, CTAs or triggers in various areas of the UI that users are currently working in to let them know there is AI assistance available. Such as when viewing a long threaded comment, we'll have a CTA of some sort to prompt AI for a summary. When the user highlights the code we'll have a prompt to explain that to them. A prompt to explain vuln, etc. I'd expect that all of these could move from various heights of content dissemination; integrated directly within the view they're on to a more in-depth height of a supportive, chat view (@pedroms is currently working on this mental model to be shared out soon).\n\nThat said it might be interesting to have our AI chat (if it ends up being a globally accessible tool) to provide prompt ideas that others have asked when viewing the page they're currently on as a quick way to get them assistance. \"Other team members have asked about: X, Y, and Z when viewing this page\".\n\ncc/ @mle @pedroms @katiemacoy", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-26 18:47:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-27 14:56:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1354470984, "note": "For the record, I am happy to assist as a regular contributor to the aspects around the UX framework that relates to interacting with AI via a chat interface. This aligns closely with what ~\"group::source code\" is working on and our intent was to help with other teams by providing a framework.\n\nAny work I need to do to make this framework accessible and useable to other teams I am willing to spend that time.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "3d095d1753014821ae87917d956ff0c7cff82baa", "created_at": "2023-04-16 23:07:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-16 23:07:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1373855510, "note": "@gweaver \n\nWe are working to name AI in GitLab today. Once it has a name, that is how we will refer to it. It will be the bot behind all AI interactions.\n\nThis particular epic is working to create the chat interface through which a user can \"chat\" with the bot about different topics. The first use cases we are focused on include:\n1. Ask questions about documentation\n2. Explain this code block\n3. Write/suggest tests\n\nI viewed the demo for summarize issue comments and I think that right now there might be 2 things for you to update:\n1. We are working on selecting an icon here. Once we pick one, I think you will want to update the icon that you are using.\n2. Any hover states or help/discovery text will want to be updated to include the name of GitLab AI that we pick today.\n\nOther than that, I do not see too much overlap. Thanks for reaching out!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "1148f34da1ad5876def5ce387c596521dfab2a48", "created_at": "2023-05-01 14:59:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-01 15:37:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1364685861, "note": "Thanks for the response @dmishunov ! Great to see we're working towards the same end goal!\n\nI've looked through the issues in this epic, but couldn't pinpoint the one where this question would belong, as none of these addressed the frontend integration part (I did consider https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-services/design.gitlab.com/-/issues/1583 but wasn't sure if it was design specific, or also had technical part). If I missed something and there's a better place to have this conversation, please point me to it.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12455340, "discussion_id": "1ec59fa075db6dc8178c23f4fd4a3e2af7f747b2", "created_at": "2023-04-24 15:03:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-24 15:03:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1344315525, "note": "@mle I like this idea! This could be a great opportunity for a [GitLab AI-specific icon or bot icon](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10261#note_1342379220). @tlinz mentioned an idea he had about this that I took to mean we could end up with a GitLab Companion (Tanuki Companion?) that's following you around just waiting for opportunities to help out, and increase your productivity... all catered to you. This could be the manifestation of that. The hub where all the things you've collaborated with it on lives, or suggestions for productivity up-leveling lives.\n\ncc/ @pedroms @katiemacoy", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "07297fc558e03d49b0153acb73592a6e1419d866", "created_at": "2023-04-06 16:45:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-06 16:45:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1341654206, "note": "This is a quick idea about maintain multiple threads / endless history. I am putting here because I don't know where else to put it (yet)\n\n@dmishunov commented https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/403728#note_1340097021 \n\n> This happens to me way too often in ChatGPT that my threads at the end have nothing in common with the beginning. Which makes it really hard to navigate when I need to get back to an answer.\n\nWe could introduce a navigation between a list of context/threads as the main landing area and allow the user to click to view thread or start a new thread.\n\n![CleanShot_2023-04-05_at_15.46.21](/uploads/90883ee7542cdd78d4b48110ef9929b5/CleanShot_2023-04-05_at_15.46.21.png)\n\nStill lots of questions like, do we navigate to that page that the user opened it on? Early thought.\n\nFYI @pedroms @katiemacoy @jmandell", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "07297fc558e03d49b0153acb73592a6e1419d866", "created_at": "2023-04-05 05:52:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-06 16:45:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1357924496, "note": "From https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10221#note_1356157738 by @dmishunov \n\n> ...how we could make the transition from the current AiGenie component (used for Explain Code) to the drawer. I played with the chat prototype for the Explain Code functionality, and here's what I came up with.\n\n> In general:\n\n> * we style the AiGenie component to look closer to drawer and position it in the lower right corner\n> * we start with AiGenie taking up only the height needed for the explanation\n> * after the user starts interacting (chatting), the AiGenie starts to grow and, eventually, takes up the whole height of the window, allowing to scroll the chat while having the header and the footer sticky", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-19 01:29:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 08:06:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1344379385, "note": "Hi @mle, while this design proposal on the left side significantly improves the navigation through history, it may not be ideal in terms representing a conversation between the user and the AI, were the user (and maybe also the AI) make references to previously discussed things. The latter is better represented in a continues thread. \n\nAs a user I also find it hard like @dmishunov to find older answers. But then again, that is in the nature of chats. \n\nI think a future improvement (in GL as well as in any other AI chat system) could be that the user could simply ask the AI to show where a specific topic was discussed. So, that would be a different type of interaction. Not one where the user-question is persisted in the chat, nor one that expects an answer to that question, but that results in an action. In this case, the chat thread would be moving up to the position where the requested topic was discussed. But there could be other actions. \"Tanuki, can you create a branch called feature-a and also protect it so that only I can push.\"\n\nI do appreciate using the link to the selected text rather than a copy of the text in the chat (top-right of the screenshot). That make the history shorter.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "07297fc558e03d49b0153acb73592a6e1419d866", "created_at": "2023-04-06 17:53:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-06 17:53:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1358285676, "note": "@mle, thanks for the reference. Here's the video of this interaction's prototype:\n\n![explain-code-chat-docs+tests](/uploads/649f06ed60acdda8767a6d1cf9289b06/explain-code-chat-docs+tests.mov)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3199302, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-19 08:06:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 08:06:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1358304147, "note": "@dmishunov Awesome to see this! \n\nFunny enough was just thinking/writing notes about what we could do with snippets of code in general: \n\n* write a comment for the selected code\n* write a spec in X for that code\n* translate code to language Y\n* Improve/Refactor Code \n* explain complexity (n+1?)\n* make it faster\n\nshould we start a prompt collection here - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/dev-subdepartment/ai-dev-promptcollection/-/tree/main/code ?\n\nThe other thing especially for specs, what might be intresting is to start building repo \"maps\" to have a better understanding which libraries or frameworks are used. So we could auto-suggest the right kind of test library for example and/or if we look into auto-healing pipelines this could be helpful. I was thinking in the context previously of auto-adding tracking for example to a project. \n\ncc @tlinz", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-19 08:18:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 08:18:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1358411357, "note": "@timzallmann Thanks for the comment!\n\nI have a question regarding those prompts - how do you envision those? I would assume they should come from user, however, we can somehow help and guide them. Here's the continuation of the idea above, where we abstract those prompts into the buttons (I know, the buttons look horrible here :sweat_smile:, but that's not the point):\n\n![explain-code-chat-docs+tests-buttons](/uploads/0a11d35e1e4a1df615c87f9a5abca6bb/explain-code-chat-docs+tests-buttons.mov)\n\nAnother idea would be to have a tooltip on the input field suggesting further actions and stimulating interactivity:\n\n![explain-code-chat-docs+tests-tooltip](/uploads/c7e10f6ba61521bfa2f1b0c538753b1f/explain-code-chat-docs+tests-tooltip.mov)\n\n\nRelated to the list of actions you suggest (really good one, btw), I would also add one more:\n\n- \"Save to snippet\" to save the code snippets from AI to snippets. I think we should thing about using the responses outside of the chat window as well and saving, generating and MR, etc. would be nice things to proceed with. But snippets are isolated enough from the project to not bother about code style, MR rules, etc. so should be a good first step towards further expansion.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3199302, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-19 09:24:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 09:24:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3199302, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-04-19 09:24:48 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1358610158, "note": "@dmishunov Thanks for sharing the the tooltip suggesting further actions. Glad you are already exploring that functionality and knowing that it is possible.\n\nI'll make sure to include it as part of the chat framework I am working on.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-19 11:24:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 11:24:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1361664685, "note": "@dmishunov My thought would be to create well working prompts in the background for standard tasks (the list from above) that are available to users with one click for standard tasks (has a high discoverability, and one click of you go for code tasks is like a high powered code toolbox and a click is still 1000x times faster then me typing in the morning without coffee some clumsy prompts about what i want ;-)). The advantage might be that we can add more info to the prompt then just the selected text (like which libraries are used, spec code, etc.). For example copilot brushes (https://githubnext.com/projects/code-brushes/)\n\nEvery interaction like that can then flow over into a full fledged chat + conversion to provide more interaction. This seems to me like the best of two worlds. Chat can of course also be opened at any point without a start task and we should take in tooling so we can reference in the chat easily the \"surroundings\" like select code on the rest of the page or a text or or or ...", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-21 07:10:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-21 07:10:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359527405, "note": "Thank you @sarahwaldner. This is great. I am glad this is coming together. :pray:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "94f3f3976e9170243b5fcc6f5422051617f5f4f4", "created_at": "2023-04-19 22:22:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-21 07:11:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359518689, "note": "@tlinz You will see that I have edited the description of this epic. I finally determined that https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10234 was in fact a duplicate of this one that you initiated at the beginning of the AI effort - thank you for the doing that.\n\nI closed https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10234 and I copied over some valuable user/experience context to make the description more robust. LMK if there are questions.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "94f3f3976e9170243b5fcc6f5422051617f5f4f4", "created_at": "2023-04-19 22:11:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 22:22:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1349092680, "note": "@dmishunov @tlinz I created this issue https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/406678/+", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "99bf4be4fa04c2f12ebd4572abd11d37176088b4", "created_at": "2023-04-12 00:56:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-12 00:56:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1357926392, "note": "@jmandell @tlinz I am gonna move the \"[AI Common]\" epics under https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10334+ because I have been working on them alongside ~\"group::source code\" and will be continue to elaborate on the details and exploration of those areas along @pedroms & @katiemacoy \n\nTorsten, I am gonna try to find a suitable epic to move any specific issues related to \"Explain this code\". If I can't find one I will create a placeholder one to cover \"iteration 1\", \"iteration 2\". This is more of a housekeeping task as we would have a few closed issues already.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2338505, "discussion_id": "3d095d1753014821ae87917d956ff0c7cff82baa", "created_at": "2023-04-19 01:34:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-20 14:00:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359490440, "note": "@pedroms @mle @katiemacoy @jmandell \n\nAdditionally I have closed https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10234 as it was very similar to what we are trying to achieve this epic. I also added some more sections to this epic including problem to be solved, vision, further details, intended users, user experience goal, and available tier.\n\nI located the Tanuki bot MVC epic under this one so that we can better align all of the work going into creating a chat bot/interface in the product that will ultimately solve multiple use cases.\n\nPlease note that the Global search team will be maturing the Tanuki Bot MVC into a robust chat interface. I am the PM for that team and @changzhengliu is the EM. Please keep us involved as we will be responsible for breaking down the work into iterations for the team!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "52caa81752dd906af8a885511c203f68dc7872e7", "created_at": "2023-04-19 21:30:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-20 18:50:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3796140, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-04-19 21:36:44 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359492038, "note": "@abellucci Please note that I have closed https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10234 in favor of this epic since there was duplication. I copied over a lot of the content to combine the descriptions.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "746c7d3ba8aab036e9bdd6178aa19b698a6a6ca5", "created_at": "2023-04-19 21:32:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-21 18:35:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1365317114, "note": "@andrei.zubov Thanks for your comment. We are designing for the interactive AI chat interface for all of the GitLab product in [this issue](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-services/design.gitlab.com/-/issues/1583). We are holistically addressing all of the items that you outline above. The Global search team is building and iterating on this interface with the goal to incorporate the AI features that other teams are working on, which includes:\n\n- Explain this code block\n- Explain this vulnerability\n- Generate tests in the MR", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "1ec59fa075db6dc8178c23f4fd4a3e2af7f747b2", "created_at": "2023-04-24 19:36:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-24 19:36:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1386535779, "note": "Lets collect all kinds of questions to start testing models that we would like to see now or in the future:\n\n* Explain the code on this page\n* Summarise the description of the issue\n* etc.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "fc9945d277ae0d8152ea6953e44bbcb0887c6810", "created_at": "2023-05-11 09:32:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-11 09:32:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1387604840, "note": "@timzallmann I created this issue to capture that https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/410644 - please ping people there!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "fc9945d277ae0d8152ea6953e44bbcb0887c6810", "created_at": "2023-05-11 21:24:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-11 21:24:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1352283324, "note": "Hi @pedroms, same comment as here: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10233#note_1352179604.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "3d095d1753014821ae87917d956ff0c7cff82baa", "created_at": "2023-04-13 23:16:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-13 23:16:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1388210253, "note": "Perfect, thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "fc9945d277ae0d8152ea6953e44bbcb0887c6810", "created_at": "2023-05-12 09:36:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-12 09:36:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1388335058, "note": "So we are targetting to build the Chat architecture on a agent/tool setup, where an LLM agent will decide based on the question what tool to use for it to answer it. Due to that the questions will not be about a certain AI feature but rather provide a certain context and/or tool to give the information the LLM will ask for. Which is also the new setup I will add for the questions which we want to support. \n\nWe are now [gathering the questions](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/410644) (especially the ones targetting the current features) and will try to be able to accomplish as many as possible. They can be content retrieval answers or even actions that can be executed (Level 2).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "fc0f63b708a3491cb15e1d9214e275adaf49d3cb", "created_at": "2023-05-12 11:03:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-12 11:03:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1393118339, "note": "@timzallmann @m_gill @tlinz @katiemacoy \n\nI am trying to wrap my brain around how to organize releases/iterations for the chat bot. I finally decided to _write it down :laughing:_. Please review and let me know if this makes sense to you. @tlinz will ultimately be organizing this but I have to have _something_ to communicate to leadership.\n\n#### 1. GitLab Chat Bot Beta\nChat Bot beta in the main application, we announce this **before** and it is enabled in the Web IDE since that is going to take a couple milestones. We will need to define what questions can be asked of it.\n\n#### 2. GitLab Chat Bot in the Web IDE - Beta\nWe announce this as a separate beta release when it is ready. \n\n#### 3. GitLab Chat Bot GA\nThis might be a single release since the experience will exist in the product and in the Web IDE.\n\nThoughts?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "b2e05ef702194d0ae49850ca28ef072e59d925a8", "created_at": "2023-05-16 22:50:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-17 10:51:27 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1393908253, "note": "@sarahwaldner this is how I imagined it too. I am thinking about 1, 2, and 3 as \"Child Epics\" (https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10550+, https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10522+, https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10585+) and hoping to have [summaries like this](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10550#note_1392312276) one for each.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4554599, "discussion_id": "b2e05ef702194d0ae49850ca28ef072e59d925a8", "created_at": "2023-05-17 10:51:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-17 10:51:27 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1395358636, "note": "Perfect I am happy to see we are aligned @m_gill", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "b2e05ef702194d0ae49850ca28ef072e59d925a8", "created_at": "2023-05-18 02:39:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-18 02:39:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1404097278, "note": "Great to see more details and an updated architectural vision! Looks really promising!\n\nI have a few questions about chat tools and switch agent in a context of https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10359+.\n\n1. How do we route the user's prompt to the right tool? What if the switch agent guesses wrong? that might be frustrating for the user, since waiting times to get a response from the AI provider might be quite significant. Do we plan to have some sort of a shortcut that the user can use to send the prompt directly to the neccessary tool? For example, what if they could tag specialised chat persona, something like `@pipeline_tanuki` if they know that's what they want to use?\n2. I want to confirm I understand your vision of a `tool` right. A product team can implement a tool in a context of a specific domain (for example *pipeline configuration*) and decide on a language model to use for it, provide the prompt that fits the expected use-case best, provide additional context in the form of extra info appended to the user prompt and/or embeddings. The main chat engine would then route the user prompt to this domain-specific implementation based on what *switch agent* decide, but the main handling of the user prompt happens in the *tool*. Did I get it right?\n\nBouns question :smile: \nWhat about the integration of custom tools into a frontend solution, was it considered already? It would be great to have an option to integrate something like widgets that can perform domain specific actions, or present an information in a particular way.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12455340, "discussion_id": "6a8f6d414adb8cd6ed1de148c509d70e11f24fdb", "created_at": "2023-05-24 15:44:56 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-24 16:09:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 12455340, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-05-24 16:09:33 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1414552349, "note": "@tlinz Just watched [your video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VXI1mF7b4E). Amazing stuff to come!\n\nMy feedback for improving the UI: marking the chatbot's response with \"experimental\", \"beta\" and \"GA\" feels very technical. Instead, I propose to display a confidence gauge. That would be a small bar from red to green with an indicator how good we think the answer is. In a first iteration we could basically just map experimental, beta and GA to low, middle and high confidence, but over time this indicator could become part of the models' output, or we could have a dedicated model calculating the confidence.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10554979, "discussion_id": "9263de8db80164ae9881d483ab5f131ba306d7df", "created_at": "2023-06-01 13:55:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-01 16:02:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422442004, "note": "I can try to work on of the WebIDE epics for Beta and GA. But I want to keep it high level. After we want to first think through the design paradigms as we work on this epic here and than copy and paste and adjust for the different clients. But it is probably a good idea to that I think about this a bit to see were copy and paste might not work.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "50e46b76ed9e53d6ebd83471be8e240920a44e6a", "created_at": "2023-06-07 16:58:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 16:58:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1422278079, "note": "@tlinz @timzallmann\n\nWe have this roadmap where we will be communicating and tracking progress of the different epics for our AI features. I need the following from you:\n\n1. I need to see an epic on that roadmap that corresponds to **GitLab Chat Bot - Web IDE \\[Beta\\]** and **GitLab Chat Bot - Web IDE \\[GA\\]**. We can use [this epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10522 \"Web IDE Extension for GitLab Chat\") or a different one. Whatever you want. We have separated the releases of the Chat Bot in the main product and the Chat Bot in the Web IDE to be iterative and because it is different scopes of work.\n2. Once we have determined the model that we are going to use for Beta I need us to estimate dates for the following epics:\n   1. [GitLab Chat Bot Beta](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10550)\n   2. [Iteration 1: Chat System demonstrate viability](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10675)\n   3. [Iteration 2: Chat system measuring user satisfaction and performance aspects](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10676)\n   4. [Iteration 3: Chat System - reach beta criteria](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10686)\n\nI understand it is very difficult to estimate dates for these but we have to so that the rest of the company has _some level_ of visibility into what we are doing and when it will release. The dates can and will change. \n\nPlease let me know if you have any further questions.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "50e46b76ed9e53d6ebd83471be8e240920a44e6a", "created_at": "2023-06-07 15:19:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-07 16:58:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1456961340, "note": "We will probably have a paid add-on subscription for the chat, that would be available for everyone independent of the tier they are in. However, to make sure the code for the chat system is not part of the CE license but part of the EE license, I am adding an ~\"GitLab Ultimate\" label for now.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "eb6633cd86db9a0a6fcadae70ccf3f0a2a684fc6", "created_at": "2023-07-04 15:34:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-04 15:34:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1368635288, "note": "@timzallmann / @mle / @dmishunov, In my mind, selecting different standard tasks would not be part of the chat itself but be part of [initiating the chat](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10221#proposal). This is largely based on my own experience with AI chat interactions where I express freely what I want without seeing a need for predefined tasks. \n\nI also expect our users (if they are not already super familiar with interacting with LLM) to quickly learn that they can basically ask anything. \n\nBut I guess this is exactly one of the things we need to learn in these experiments in dialog with the users. Do they want predefined tasks? Is the number of tasks 80% of users care about short enough to be easy to pick from? Do they not care about predefined tasks.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "53629393863018cc462fd8096d4125bf932f4a78", "created_at": "2023-04-26 13:03:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-18 13:34:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 785400, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 10822493, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-18 13:34:30 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1427315167, "note": "@jackib, thanks for helping us get organized. I'm supportive of whatever approach you want to take here. The second table feels like future work once everything has been migrated to the work items architecture. Maybe we could split that out and track it somewhere else?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "1cbff05eb2a30264965193162e08a1db86a82299", "created_at": "2023-06-12 14:44:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-12 14:44:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 677568, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1425750498, "note": "@mushakov @gweaver @amandarueda @nickbrandt @esybrant \n\nI'm working on updating this [epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9450) so that it reflects our work coming out of the OKR. The tracking table in the description is a bit of overhead/project management, so let me know whether or not this kind of thing is helpful. If it is helpful, then please comment with anything else you want to add.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4089849, "discussion_id": "1cbff05eb2a30264965193162e08a1db86a82299", "created_at": "2023-06-09 20:46:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-12 14:44:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 677568, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1427522007, "note": "@gweaver Good idea, I'll pull it out of this epic and into a \"future considerations\" issue where we can add ideas we're not ready to break into issues yet.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4089849, "discussion_id": "1cbff05eb2a30264965193162e08a1db86a82299", "created_at": "2023-06-12 17:36:19 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-12 18:58:19 UTC", "noteable_id": 677568, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1269490106, "note": "Hello @cu00oe, thanks for the question! This is an entirely new infrastructure in which we plan to migrate issues, epics and requirements to this calendar year. We have already launched [tasks](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/tasks.html) on the framework. \n\nCan you tell me which features you're looking forward to and I can provide more information?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-07 22:39:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-07 22:39:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 893580115, "note": "One of my customers is also interested in this.\n\n[Internal Link](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0014M00001yVENA)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10219953, "discussion_id": "bf8958ed261d8cff71aceee6479bf0585902a629", "created_at": "2022-03-29 21:14:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-03-29 21:14:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 585828405, "note": "Thanks for creating this issue @cdybenko.\n\nFYI @kushalpandya @fguibert @rajatgitlab In %\"14.1\" we're going to start the process of updating epics to be an extended \"collabject\" (issuable).\n\n@ntepluhina Is going to attend the kickoff meetings and guide the frontend architecture, as we have yet to determine what an issue and/or a core collabject view looks like.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "390657777028bd76ff261a914354a036bb86ff93", "created_at": "2021-05-26 18:25:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-26 18:25:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 578868446, "note": "@gweaver I've created this epic to clarify goals and bring together all of our planning initiatives under the same umbrella. Can you add to the sections above in regards to your team's goals, risks, etc?  I want to keep this a succinct TLDR from our learnings in meetings but make sure we track both of our goals for a successful transition to our roadmaps.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "88cc4beb1ea5df5a0f4747f7dace2328abf19bec", "created_at": "2021-05-18 22:28:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-18 23:03:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 578869381, "note": "@mushakov I created this after wanting to give you the TLDR on your GMP onboarding issue. Hopefully, this can serve as a top-level place to reference all the content we have going on around this initiative.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "5a476218f3a010429648dc383f46d2d0b158e96c", "created_at": "2021-05-18 22:29:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-09-13 20:03:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1270536270, "note": "Thanks for the reply @amandarueda. We are evaluating to replace our Github service with Gitlab. But the project management stuff looks WIP. To be specific we are looking for custom fields on Issues, probably this [https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7198](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7198)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13640713, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-08 12:54:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-08 13:52:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1270540992, "note": "I tried to look into issues and follow whats what, but frankly I am not able to. Hope someone could give a rough estimate. Thanks", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13640713, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-08 12:56:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-08 12:56:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 586986029, "note": "- Are we still looking to start with Epics, or is it Requirements now?\n- What deliverables would be most helpful from Design -> Dev/Eng? Wires for planning breakdown? Something else?\n- What metrics are most important to track? Is there anything Design can do to be of support here?\n- What are the biggest risks in terms of handoff from Design? What would feel overwhelming to build?\n- What is MVC 1 of collaboration objects? What is required to be functional and get feedback? What could be future iterations?\n- When are we looking to be \"done\" and release the new collaboration object to users? Does it map 1:1 with the Shared Goals section?\n- How or when should we incorporate objects like MRs? How do we strive for consistency?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "61906d7563bb859509e69e6d949d3f401373aa3e", "created_at": "2021-05-27 15:27:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-27 15:58:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3617348, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-05-27 15:58:56 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 579723704, "note": "Thank you for putting this together @cdybenko ! I have a few questions:\n\n1. If I'm understanding correctly, this would make it possible to create an Epic in the same way that Incidents can be created by selecting an option from the Issue Type dropdown. Can you confirm? \n1. Does converting Epics to Issue Types mean that they could be created in a Project after this work is complete?\n1. Parenting for all issue types is interesting. Are y'all thinking about enabling this for all issue types?\n1. Am I interpreting correctly from the [spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/139gKTbUqHI7Ej9KBemHWKS7DySRUVTz03ajlgnFM4QY/edit#gid=0) that part of this effort will include bringing parity to the fields available to each issue type where it makes sense? \n\ncc: @gweaver @mjwood", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "5eb286665d8ff09f816ff622c2f34cbd0a7adaa1", "created_at": "2021-05-19 14:53:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 16:46:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 579832625, "note": "@mushakov all good questions!\n\n> 1. If I'm understanding correctly, this would make it possible to create an Epic in the same way that Incidents can be created by selecting an option from the Issue Type dropdown. Can you confirm?\n\nWe'll have the same UX as right now for creating epics, but under the hood, it will be that dropdown. \n\nWe'll also allow easy conversion between objects on this same model. This could be really useful in other areas of the UI where you want to change objects. For example, if you were looking at an issue on a roadmap and it should be an epic, you could just click it and convert. With the issue type model, it would only change one field and then render it as the other object.\n\n> 2. Does converting Epics to Issue Types mean that they could be created in a Project after this work is complete?\n\nYes, under the hood, all Planning Objects (Collabjects) will exist at the group or project level. We won't enable that in the UI for the MVC but this opens up massive flexibility.\n\n> 3. Parenting for all issue types is interesting. Are y'all thinking about enabling this for all issue types?\n\nYep, it should be a flexible relation field. You could imagine viewing a roadmap and seeing an Initiative at the top, Epics a click below, Issues/Stories below that, and maybe even MRs or a new Todo issue type oject below the Stories. The goal is to allow flexibility in how the objects are defined and parented in a structure that works for the user's organization. \n\n> 4. Am I interpreting correctly from the [spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/139gKTbUqHI7Ej9KBemHWKS7DySRUVTz03ajlgnFM4QY/edit#gid=0) that part of this effort will include bringing parity to the fields available to each issue type where it makes sense?\n\nYes, all fields will exist and it's just whether we turn them on in the UI. At some point, our users can also turn fields on and off. \n\nThe other big thing to note from that spreadsheet is the reduction of duplicated effort. Right now we have separate codebases for issue lists vs epic lists, filters, epic boards vs issue boards. When we have parity we can focus our engineering efforts on one view and then have all the different object types work with it. This MR has the list of planned Epic features I will get for free with our Collabjects work, which means we don't keep re-building functionality:  https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/80922", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "5eb286665d8ff09f816ff622c2f34cbd0a7adaa1", "created_at": "2021-05-19 16:46:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 16:46:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 580165829, "note": "Thanks @cdybenko for the context! The list of features that you get for free would be a great piece of info to add explicitly to this Epic somehow :thinking: .", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "5eb286665d8ff09f816ff622c2f34cbd0a7adaa1", "created_at": "2021-05-19 19:27:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 19:27:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 580170638, "note": "I added a blurb to https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6033#draft-shared-goals-at-end-of-planning . Let me know what you think.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "5eb286665d8ff09f816ff622c2f34cbd0a7adaa1", "created_at": "2021-05-19 19:33:34 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-19 19:33:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 622090725, "note": "@cdybenko @johnhope @jlear @donaldcook I moved most of the issue types (with the exception of end-user customization) issues from https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/3354 to this epic under `MVC 0 - BE Architecture`. I also moved over the two relevant discussion issues on `Converting Plan Objects to Issue Types` and `Extensible Issues Technical Implementation` here. We can probably consolidate all of the discussion issues given we are all talking about the same underlying architecture decisions for the future of work items. Feel free to close the overlapping discussion issues and redirect to the SSoT technical discission. \n\nChristen, I also moved over the two open issues for filtering by type in different views. I'm not sure which MVC we want to drop these in so feel free to pick one!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "42c61ef0fc04b79e22ebf1e1b70dd50fde0e3cc5", "created_at": "2021-07-08 22:45:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-09 12:23:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 622563201, "note": "Thanks @gweaver \n\ncc'ing @acroitor as he's leading the technical discussion.\n\nIt'd be great to keep discussion and items in one place. Discoto has been working well in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/332566. If we discuss things elsewhere, at least capturing the decisions/outcomes in this as SSoT would be good.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4418630, "discussion_id": "42c61ef0fc04b79e22ebf1e1b70dd50fde0e3cc5", "created_at": "2021-07-09 12:23:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-09 12:23:18 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 622593359, "note": "> We can probably consolidate all of the discussion issues given we are all talking about the same underlying architecture decisions for the future of work items. Feel free to close the overlapping discussion issues and redirect to the SSoT technical discussion.\n\nI'm torn between keeping all technical discussion in one place(single issue) and having massive threads with all the ideas and discussions branching out into several areas, thus leading to taking too big of a bite(thinking about too much) and loosing the essence of a discussion and splitting discussions across several \"work items\" where we lose the SSOT. On the other hand I can see how having everything summarized in one place and linking out to details would be helpful.\n\n> If we discuss things elsewhere, at least capturing the decisions/outcomes in this as SSoT would be good.\n\nThis is what I'm currently leaning towards as well. We do have some \"duplicate\" discussion threads but once we get to a decision we can just keep one as SSOT for the discussion outcome, cross-link to all other discussions(issues, epics) and close those.\n\nI'll do my best to keep a decision/status summary, perhaps on https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6285 and link out to discussions, docs etc. As of now this is all WIP :smile_cat:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3483274, "discussion_id": "42c61ef0fc04b79e22ebf1e1b70dd50fde0e3cc5", "created_at": "2021-07-09 12:55:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-12 20:55:57 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 626383261, "note": "@cdybenko @johnhope @jlear @donaldcook @acroitor do ya'll think we could work on the four MVCs in parallel once MVC0 is done? I'm trying to figure out what to put in our 14.2 release planning issue :smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "b5e463f7b83be42ff24a0b6d234b1d2acb1a2574", "created_at": "2021-07-14 14:58:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-14 15:17:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 626402995, "note": "@gweaver On the ~frontend, safest play would probably be to work on MVC 1 first (after MVC 0) as it will include the actual building of the architecture that is determined in MVC 0. 2, 3, and 4 can then be worked on in parallel, afterward.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "b5e463f7b83be42ff24a0b6d234b1d2acb1a2574", "created_at": "2021-07-14 15:17:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-14 15:17:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 626427125, "note": "@gweaver I'd say that it's likely as we approach the end of MVC0 on the ~backend we will naturally start to overlap into MVC1 and maybe MVC2 (e.g. as we settle on an approach for the table/model structure we'll stub out the URL and hierarchy, which are technically in the two following MVCs) but I'd be hesitant to go much beyond that.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5965371, "discussion_id": "b5e463f7b83be42ff24a0b6d234b1d2acb1a2574", "created_at": "2021-07-14 15:36:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-19 13:41:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 638961664, "note": "**NOTE:**\nThese MVCs are a guideline for Engineering, and are not tied to any specific milestone or release\nroadmap.\n\n### MVC I: Introduce the work item type model\n\nMVC I goal is to get to the point where we can replace `issues#issue_type` column with\n`issues#work_item_type_id` in the code, so we can completely rely on WITs defined in\n`work_item_types` table. The entire MVC can be broken down into several smaller iterations.\n\n- Iteration 1\n  - Create `work_item_type` db table\n  - Add `work_item_type_id` column to issues table\n- Iteration 2\n  - Add the code for creating default WITs for new root namespaces\n  - Populate `work_item_types` with default WITs for all existing root namespaces\n  - Ensure `work_item_type_id` is updated along `issue_type` when changing the type on the issue\n- Iteration 3\n  - Back-fill `work_item_type_id` in `issues` table with corresponding data from\n      `work_item_types` according to root namespace\n- Iteration 4\n  - Switch code from using `issue_type` to using `work_item_type_id`\n    - This is probably a big enough task that can be broken down into several smaller tasks\n\nMost of these tasks can be worked on in parallel, but need to be deployed in a predefined order.\n\n### MVC II: Map attributes to WITs\n\nAfter MVC I we would have WITs concept and we can introduce new WITs if needed,\nbut all WITs at this point will have the same set of attributes, so the only difference would\nbe simply the type, functionally all WITs will be the same at this stage.\n\nMVC II goal is to differentiate WITs functionally, by mapping specific attributes to specific\nWIT.\n\n- Hardcode the attributes to WIT mappings for each individual predefined WIT, initially this will\n  perhaps just be a list of columns for each WIT\n- Code changes related using WITs attributes mapping to load WIT specific data\n- FE needs to be aware of WITs atttributes mappings\n\n### MVC III: Go full widgets\n\nThis is where we need to have all (or most) attributes widgetized. Besides some of the simpler\nwidgets: text, number, date, we'll need to make sure we can support a few more complex ones, like\nassociations: milestone, iteration, assignees, etc as well as hierarchy, inherited date widget, etc.\n\nThis will allow us to reach feature parity with most plan objects that we currently support under WITs\numbrella.\n\n### MVC IV: Dynamic widgets mapping to WIT\n\nNext MVC is to move from hardcoded attributes mapping to a WIT to dynamically defined widgets mappings.\nThis will give customers the ability to customize predefined WITs with their preferred list of\nwidgets\n\n- Move mappings definition to a DB structure\n- Code changes related to reading customer specific widget mappings and fetching respective data\n  for WIs\n- Define permissions on who is allowed to change WIT widgets\n\n### MVC V: Custom work item types\n\nAt this stage we would expose WIT creation to the customers so that customers can define\ntheir own CWITs built on top the existing predefined widgets.\n\n### MVC VI: Custom widgets\n\nThis is where we will be addressing full customization of CWITs with CWs", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3483274, "discussion_id": "74ff6dcdeeb460abe0d2faa66aae430d00468856", "created_at": "2021-07-29 17:17:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-29 17:17:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1270648859, "note": "@cu00oe I think the better record to track for customizable work types would be: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7897\n\n@gweaver can you comment on the roadmap and timeline for this feature?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-08 13:53:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-08 13:53:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 661412236, "note": "@acroitor, \n\n> moved out of the doc,\n\nYou mean the dev doc !66519?\n\nThis is the clearest eng. outline on the work item stuff. Can we keep it in the doc and open a MR to modify it as directions evolve?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5961404, "discussion_id": "74ff6dcdeeb460abe0d2faa66aae430d00468856", "created_at": "2021-08-26 08:19:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-08-26 08:19:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 5961404, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-08-26 08:19:11 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1248219356, "note": "EU financing model for science uses concept of \"Work Packages\" https://enspire.science/work-packages-in-horizon-europe-how-to-do-it-right/ which also contains funding amount for the project that applies for financing. If GitLab directly supports this concept for tracking work and money, that would result in its increased adoption among EU scientific institutions, which would lead to better science and open science practices.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 907418, "discussion_id": "55f5d41ab1cbb2d09bf5e5f87546a1e7e6f06150", "created_at": "2023-01-21 11:44:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-08 11:59:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 907418, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-01-21 11:45:15 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1134683806, "note": "Thank you both, this is a fascinating discussion with valid points for both approaches. I think the next best step is to conduct some validation via user interviews. I want to thoroughly understand the jobs to be done, the needs within the workflow and the relationship opportunities between designs and the other work item types. From there, I can publish my findings, and we can return to this discussion. Adding this to our sync agenda @uhlexsis :art:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-13 13:09:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-13 13:09:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1270892576, "note": "@cu00oe, we're currently planning on focusing on https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7897 and custom fields in the second half of this calendar year. \n\n> But the project management stuff looks WIP\n\nThere is a lot that is already done, and in most cases, sufficient to support the majority of use cases that GitHub currently supports (and many that it does not).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-08 15:50:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-08 15:50:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 690350303, "note": "A 150 seats (planned growth to 300+) ~\"GitLab Premium\" ~customer (https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100000NmTeD, internal link) is interested in Work Items and have identified it as one of top features to support their growth and adoption by more teams internally\n\n- Why interested: Customer is migrating from Bugzilla and sees it as important requirement for this migration. They would want a better way to differentiate issues, apply different workflows and report on them.\n- Current solution for this problem: Labels, but this is seen as a hack and customizing / reporting is not perfect\n- Impact to the customer of not having this: Delayed growth\n- Questions: Interested in Roadmap \n- PM to mention: @gweaver", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4261879, "discussion_id": "26385bcff0255dc83db899f21c9101ee0078fcdd", "created_at": "2021-09-29 14:50:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-09-29 15:00:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 722824645, "note": "Thanks for updating the description here @cdybenko @gweaver ! :rocket: \n\nFor most of these, for example: \n\n###### Tasks / Work Item Parenting | ~\"group::product planning\" ~\"group::project management\"\n###### Requirements as a work item\n###### Improve Non-Work Item Relationships | ~\"group::product planning\" ~\"group::project management\"\n###### Upgraded Hierarchies | ~\"group::product planning\"\n\nThere are a few different items within each of these goals. How do we want to tackle these iteratively and across groups? \n\n- Do we want to map each of these to an issue that can be prioritized and moved through the workflow? Something else?\n- Are we splitting the workload across groups in some way?\n- How do these relate to the current \"MVC epics\"?\n\nI want to make sure I understand where I should prioritize my time so that I can get smaller iterations out for collaboration more regularly.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "d1d5b4e9851d820de0a3d8c77f94a4ab74a582c7", "created_at": "2021-11-03 21:35:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-08 14:41:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3617348, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-11-03 21:35:56 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 914062494, "note": "I am an Agile Program/Project manager and a customer of GitLab. My organization uses GitLab heavily from planning to release stage. \n\nWe are currently using Kanban flow which is working fine but we are growing fast and maintaining everything with multiple component teams having their own GitLab project (Mobile, Backend, Web etc) is becoming a challenge. We are planning to move to a more organized approach (with Milestones and Iterations) as described by @gweaver in this YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmASFwSap7c)\n\nMy questions are:\n1. What is the timeline we are looking at for the change described in this EPIC. A Tentative time should also be fine. eg. By Dec 2022 or Q2 2023.\n\n2. From end user perspective, should we take any extra care while deciding to create Epics or Issues as later on they will be converted/migrated to Work Items or other related types.\n\n3. Can you give us a simple view of how work items will look like ?\nEg. There will be a single button named 'Create Work Item' and in next pop up screen you need to select from below types\n- Task\n- Bug\n- Epic\n- User Story\n- Requirements\n- Incident\n\nAlso what will be the parental hierarchies for this ? Eg. You can create Task only under User Story or Epic OR You can create Bug as an independent work item or under a User Story or Epic.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 11166071, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-15 13:19:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-15 13:57:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 920931070, "note": "Some great sounding features in here. Having a clearer methodology for Project Management vs workable items, and being able to define those items more clearly, sounds perfect.\n\nIt can *sort of* be achieved with the current setup (via labels), but I really like where this is going -- turning everything into a similar \"object\" in a hierarchy rather than separate standalone structures that connect and get \"labeled\" to show what they are.\n\nHuge +1 for all of this, can't wait to see where it goes!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10188931, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-22 11:53:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-22 14:54:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 790446841, "note": "One of my customers is interested in this: \n- Link to request: [Internal Link](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0014M00001ph9m7 )\n- Why interested: This customer would like to have the ability to track parent/child requirements and test cases and be able to link them together.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 7690791, "discussion_id": "bf8958ed261d8cff71aceee6479bf0585902a629", "created_at": "2021-12-20 19:50:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-01-28 00:52:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 914099784, "note": "> What is the timeline we are looking at for the change described in this EPIC. A Tentative time should also be fine. eg. By Dec 2022 or Q2 2023.\n\n@akashsaini21 Somewhere around there is our goal. We'd be really happy to be done by December, but some things are out of our control :smile: \n\n> From end user perspective, should we take any extra care while deciding to create Epics or Issues as later on they will be converted/migrated to Work Items or other related types.\n\nNo extra care is needed. If we do our jobs well, everything should \"just work\". \n\n> Can you give us a simple view of how work items will look like ? Eg. There will be a single button named 'Create Work Item' and in next pop up screen you need to select from below types\n\nThis is still evolving, but as of right now with our current focus on https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7103+, this is what creating a new work item looks like: \n\n![Screen_Shot_2022-04-15_at_9.50.32_AM](/uploads/f9ff076bb1bfce955bd144da414b3c39/Screen_Shot_2022-04-15_at_9.50.32_AM.png)\n\nWe'll likely change the design a lot in the coming months (ex: [exploratory design](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/344106/designs/Action_bar_-_left.png)), but the goal is to support selecting a type and effortlessly changing the type at any point after a work item has been created. \n\n> Also what will be the parental hierarchies for this ? Eg. You can create Task only under User Story or Epic OR You can create Bug as an independent work item or under a User Story or Epic.\n\nAs with the work item detail view, the interface design is still evolving here (ex: [exploratory design](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/340844/designs/Larger_MVC_ideation.png)), but I do believe the goal is to create some validation around the hierarchy without going too far overboard and making it frustrating to use. What would you expect/prefer and why?\n\nFYI @mushakov", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-15 13:57:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-15 13:57:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1126194126, "note": "I would love to see this and being able to assign epics like issues and MRs <3", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3659089, "discussion_id": "5e43bb3f13d1e5aeab42d849a31b9206c64f4dc9", "created_at": "2022-10-06 07:23:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-06 07:23:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 914122812, "note": "Thanks you very much @gweaver for the quick response.\n\nFor the last question: I am still relatively new to GitLab world (25 days). My background is mostly in JIRA, where everything is managed via Epic, User story and then subtasks under them. \n\nFor feature driven teams that JIRA model is slightly easy to use as you can create a User Story for a feature and all the Substasks for Backend, FrontEnd, Mobile, QA, Substask:Bug can be created under it. You would complete a User story(Feature) only when all subtasks under it are complete. \n\nI understand that GitLab has a different concept as of now as you have described in your video (heavy reliance on labels by the way) where everything is either an Epic or an Issue.\n\nI do not have a solid preference as long as it is easy to use. My only suggestion would be that if we move to work item type model in coming quarters, keep it simple for people like us so that we spare less time in understanding the technicalities of the tool and spare more time on our actual work :smile: \n\nFor example (unrelated to current discussion, will post in its relevant epic separately): Milestones and Iterations are the most confusing features. Just by reading GitLab documentation, it is almost impossible to describe the difference between Milestones and Iterations. When to use Milestones and when to use Iterations ? It is not clear until we watch your video.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 11166071, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-15 14:21:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-15 15:08:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 11166071, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2022-04-15 15:08:47 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1318952980, "note": "I have a ~\"GitLab Premium\" [customer](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100001MS2c8) is very worried about how these changes will impact their internal processes and trainings they have delivered to their teams and is requesting training or a YouTube video walk through training. Do we have any resources to provide or will we be supplying those? Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12249784, "discussion_id": "c1d381b585739d73336b0f2155441396c16c1b56", "created_at": "2023-03-17 16:59:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-17 16:59:27 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1136673704, "note": "@somarandos I think the goal of making design management or design collaboration more of a first class citizen is a great one that we should strive for as we improve the experience. Making it a type of work item could be a solution, but I also agree that exploration and validation here would be helpful. \n\nIn the meantime, I think we can also iterate toward this by improving discoverability and usability across the experience. Also, making design management available in items outside of issues could make it more flexible (which I believe is the intention of \"widgetizing\u2122\ufe0f it).\n\nThanks for this feedback! We are sorting through our upcoming priorities in the coming weeks so this is super timely. :rocket:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-14 23:38:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-16 17:39:04 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1021154393, "note": "@gweaver [Idea from Twitter: Link MRs to epics.](https://twitter.com/ocramius/status/1545449090242191362?s=21&t=cjM5tsEYGI1c0_VHqQbAVA) I assume MR relations to epics would be possible with work items?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5534214, "discussion_id": "694b91d835f247c2e51a53a6ac080a3ff7a605b2", "created_at": "2022-07-08 22:49:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-07-09 02:15:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1021197705, "note": "@dnsmichi TL;DR: yes :smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "694b91d835f247c2e51a53a6ac080a3ff7a605b2", "created_at": "2022-07-09 02:15:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-07-09 02:15:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 915782960, "note": "@akashsaini21 thanks for the input. In the coming releases, you'll be able to:\n\n1. Create an epic in a group = `Feature` (it will just be called Epic for now but the mechanics are the same)\n2. Create an issue in a project = `User Story`\n3. Create a task as a child of an issue = `Task`\n\nWe will hopefully be releasing the MVC of Tasks in 15.0 (https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7103) -- which will just be the ability to convert a markdown checklist item into a work item of type Task, edit the title, open/close/delete the task. That will be followed shortly by https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7448, which will make the task be a formal child of an issue with the ability to create tasks from the \"hierarchy widget\" directly. After that, we'll tackle https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7168+, https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/334810+, and expose the other meta data on issues natively within Tasks. \n\nFYI @mushakov \n\n/cc @msedlakjakubowski when you're back, let's collaborate on improving the docs to differentiate the use cases for Milestones and Iterations.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-18 18:55:55 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-22 11:49:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4303289, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2022-04-18 18:56:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1023024656, "note": "@gweaver Any tentative plans on when this feature will be available on Gitlab.com?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10735508, "discussion_id": "2cc013e8dba94d155fa878e7f0859cde5df800f4", "created_at": "2022-07-12 01:08:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-07-12 13:31:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1023832992, "note": "@rajkga the overall outcome of this epic will come in many smaller pieces. Tentatively:\n\n- The first bits of https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7103+ and https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6286+ will be live on GitLab.com in a week or two. \n- We'll continue to iterate on those two epics until they are complete. \n- The consolidation of epics and issues into work items will likely not be complete until later this year.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "2cc013e8dba94d155fa878e7f0859cde5df800f4", "created_at": "2022-07-12 13:31:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-07-12 13:31:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 824252518, "note": "The following ~customer is interested in this capability \n\n- Subscription: ~\"GitLab Ultimate\" OR ~\"GitLab Premium\" OR ~\"GitLab Free\" \n- Product: ~SaaS \n- Link to request: [Internal Link](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/0016100001BQoSS)\n- Priority: ~\"customer priority::10\" \n- Why interested: This customer would like to have the ability to track parent/child requirements and test cases and be able to link them together. \n- What are they trying to solve: They have many cross-platform and cross-team work and need to manage dependencies at a higher level than issues.\n  Our MVP for this capability would be:\n    - Able to map the dependency in one feature for another. That dependent feature can be on the same folder or any subfolders under it. Need at minimum blocking, blocked by\n    - If a feature is blocking another feature, the blocked features cannot end before the blocking feature.\n    - Advanced: In the roadmap view, we would want to see relationships of dependent (blocked, blocking) visually represented. [comment](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/202431#note_519036981)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4810535, "discussion_id": "bf8958ed261d8cff71aceee6479bf0585902a629", "created_at": "2022-01-28 00:52:23 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-22 19:13:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4810535, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-03-22 19:13:48 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1266084914, "note": "Hi, When can we expect this product to generally available ? A rough estimate would be cool. Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13640713, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-05 16:27:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-07 22:39:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1136706813, "note": "Opensource FTW :v:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12672053, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-15 02:13:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-16 17:39:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1183343274, "note": "@gweaver I don't see the work for [add quick actions to work items](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/382160) in the table and I'm not sure how your section works so I didn't want to break it. Can you please add?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "8cdb5e10ea60d5fa406c96d60559bf9306679e48", "created_at": "2022-11-23 16:22:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-30 16:24:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1065348266, "note": "[A Premium self-managed customer with ~8300 seats](https://gitlab.my.salesforce.com/00161000004bZPD) has submitted this as a **Low** priority item.\n\n- **Link to request:** GitLab team members may click the linked mention to view additional detail for this request within the customer's collaboration project.\n- **Priority:** ~\"customer priority::1\"\n- **Why interested:** \n- **Current solution for this problem:** \n- **Impact to the customer of not having this:** \n- **Questions:** \n- **PM to mention:** undefined\n\n\n _This is an automated comment. If you notice an issue, please `@-mention` me._", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4587943, "discussion_id": "c7c9de7c408ed642c07717e73a2b36b39f56ec72", "created_at": "2022-08-15 21:21:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-15 21:24:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1065369342, "note": "We specifically need Slack notifications for epics.. thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1873771, "discussion_id": "c7c9de7c408ed642c07717e73a2b36b39f56ec72", "created_at": "2022-08-15 21:52:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-15 22:00:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1066015385, "note": "@jrreid fyi appears that the automation is somewhat broken, it's re-posting the same comment every hour or so.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 107951, "discussion_id": "87d43cd6a3ad6747fdda6c17e525e21521c9a594", "created_at": "2022-08-16 11:31:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-16 13:09:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 638962354, "note": "moved out of the doc, we can consider having this or parts of this as epic description, or not.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3483274, "discussion_id": "74ff6dcdeeb460abe0d2faa66aae430d00468856", "created_at": "2021-07-29 17:17:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-29 17:17:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 585551885, "note": "## Engineering questions to address in the kickoff meeting:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "61906d7563bb859509e69e6d949d3f401373aa3e", "created_at": "2021-05-26 13:41:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-27 15:27:55 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4669960, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-05-26 13:42:09 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 624352151, "note": "Thanks @gweaver and @acroitor - it's been awesome to see all the collaboration and discussion happening, but definitely has been a bit tricky keeping track of what got said where.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5965371, "discussion_id": "42c61ef0fc04b79e22ebf1e1b70dd50fde0e3cc5", "created_at": "2021-07-12 20:57:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-07-12 21:06:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 578900292, "note": "@mjwood I've added a section above for Certify as well so we can make sure we align our designs and migration plan for both Epics and Requirements. Please fill out the sections with your handle and also add to DRAFT areas!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "88cc4beb1ea5df5a0f4747f7dace2328abf19bec", "created_at": "2021-05-18 23:03:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-05-18 23:03:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 661461384, "note": "I think the problem with this is that it will be very dynamic, i.e. change quite a bit and it will be additional work to keep the doc up to date and not confuse devs on where we are an why it changed, so I think it will be better to have it at epics/issues level.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3483274, "discussion_id": "74ff6dcdeeb460abe0d2faa66aae430d00468856", "created_at": "2021-08-26 09:01:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-08-26 09:01:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 921161079, "note": "@gweaver I'm back and happy to collaborate :thumbsup: I'll schedule some time, perhaps next week?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4867274, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-22 14:39:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-26 18:35:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 917910010, "note": "Thank you for the clarity there. @gweaver", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 11166071, "discussion_id": "0c050f6d9adeb2b5f39c26c36b71d8dab96e4e85", "created_at": "2022-04-20 09:30:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-04-20 13:19:37 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1065373928, "note": "Thanks for confirming @pherlihy !\n\nFYI @g.hickman", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "c7c9de7c408ed642c07717e73a2b36b39f56ec72", "created_at": "2022-08-15 22:00:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-26 21:14:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1065350479, "note": "@jrreid Thanks for the comment! Is the need centered around Slack notifications for Epics or are there other gaps that should be addressed?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "c7c9de7c408ed642c07717e73a2b36b39f56ec72", "created_at": "2022-08-15 21:24:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-15 21:24:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1352866073, "note": "Hi! \nWe are a ~\"GitLab Premium\"  customer who are looking into moving our project management into gitlab.\n\nOur first step is a more conscious use of epics. In relation to that we are wondering if there is any ETA for when epics will have description templates available?\n\nAwesome work you are doing - really looking forward to the changes coming with this initiative!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10166363, "discussion_id": "34c474f960e4436f9b696f1c403b52840a682268", "created_at": "2023-04-14 10:33:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-14 14:39:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1133607894, "note": "@somarandos Thank you for taking the time to comment and explain your concern regarding the direction of Design Management as it relates to our Work Items roadmap. \n\n>Imho we have to treat basically a flat list of work_items and let them mix and match with all the possible combinations to suite their use cases best.\n\nI completely agree with this statement, but transparently, I've just recently joined the ~\"group::product planning\" and I may be missing historical context as to why Design Management might be not a fit for work items.\n\n@uhlexsis @kushalpandya have we discussed/considered a work item type of `designs`?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-12 19:06:20 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-12 19:06:20 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1066154088, "note": "Thanks @vermeeren! Sorry for the noise in your inboxes. I've deactivated the automation.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4587943, "discussion_id": "87d43cd6a3ad6747fdda6c17e525e21521c9a594", "created_at": "2022-08-16 13:09:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-08-16 13:29:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1158807613, "note": "### Work Item Types Customizations\n\nNot sure this was asked discussed somewhere before if so I would be happy to read that and contribute there. \n\nThis is more a conceptual question rather than technical, but I do wonder how far does the work item customization go in the scope of a BIG company?\n\nWe initially started with the idea that we will have instance wide work item types that are basically predefined initially by the GitLab setup, e.g. Issue, Task, Epic, Requirement, etc\n\nThese instance level predefined types can be customized at root level groups by renaming, disabling, changing their collection of available widgets or adding a new work item type altogether.\n\nThis is perhaps a much further iteration, but I wonder how much customization we would need to account for at the sub-groups levels? \n\nWould disabling/hiding specific work item types or some of their widgets be enough customization? \n\nI'm worried allowing full customization at any sub-group level would add the amount of complexity and confusion that will be impossible to deal with in complex work items structures. At the same time having a full complex work items structure roll down to all subgroups in a hierarchy may also be unnecessary if you consider that in an big company some organizations(or parts of it) may rely only on parts of the work items :thinking: \n\nI don't think we need more than one hierarchy of work items per organization, do we ? :thinking:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3483274, "discussion_id": "a885d3a0405c69d9e1d528b701246d586832404e", "created_at": "2022-11-03 11:11:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-03 13:46:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1159059501, "note": "This is a very timely question @acroitor as @jprovaznik was just considering this in [another thread](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/378799#note_1158651476). For the immediate future, we're limiting the customization at the root namespace with the children subgroups/projects inheriting this information.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "a885d3a0405c69d9e1d528b701246d586832404e", "created_at": "2022-11-03 13:46:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-04 09:18:22 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1134021324, "note": "@amandarueda I wonder if we need to treat Designs as an independent Work Item type as we've always tied designs with an Issue, sure the discussions for each design are separate from discussions within issue itself so in that case, we can have designs as a widget that can be associated to Issue (or any other Work Item type) as that will allow us to extend designs to be available with other Work Item types as well like MRs or Epics.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-13 05:20:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-13 05:20:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1191498532, "note": "@amandarueda done!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "8cdb5e10ea60d5fa406c96d60559bf9306679e48", "created_at": "2022-11-30 16:24:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-12-05 19:25:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1275071792, "note": "Thats great News! Thank you for the replies @gweaver @amandarueda :pray: So according to this we might take one more look in Q3 while trying to figure out others parts of the migration.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13640713, "discussion_id": "c74115c6ff20fe6e52ff64fa541546b80d3485f6", "created_at": "2023-02-11 04:35:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-15 16:06:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1185065576, "note": "Just closing the loop on this one, created this [epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9325) for further exploration.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-11-24 19:18:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-11-24 19:18:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 726852516, "note": "@uhlexsis I've further refined the description to completely separate the work by product groups within Plan. You can coordinate with @cdybenko or @mjwood to update the critical path for each respective product group as ya'll see fit. \n\n> Do we want to map each of these to an issue that can be prioritized and moved through the workflow? Something else?\n\nThat is up to you and Christen. ~\"group::project management\" is going to move forward with `Tasks` as soon as the parenting widget (MVC 2) is integrated into the new work item UI (and works / has appropriate APIs). As work is now fully separated out amongst groups, ~\"group::product planning\" should feel empowered to work on `Feature` in tandem with `Task`. I've noted the dependencies between the two groups in the critical path. \n\nAs far as URLs and how to integrate `Feature` into the current UI while it's WIP, that is up to you and Christen to sort out! I'm going to have ~\"group::project management\" proceed with working on the widgets and functionality that are necessary to support `Feature` (epic parity) first, but under the `Task` type -- which also means they will be available for `Feature` whenever that type is visible in the UI. Basic TL;DR of what's blocking ~\"group::project management\" in the immediate:\n\n- Getting the \"parenting widget\" you designed integrated into the new Work Item View. Ideally, for my immediate use case (`Task`), the widget should be able to create a new child with just a title, edit the title inline, remove the relationship, delete/close the child from the widget. But again, what you do here is up to you and Christen :smile:  \n\nOnce that is integrated into the new work item UI, I'll work on backporting the \"parenting widget\" to the legacy issue UI and displaying the new work item detail view in a modal or something similar within the legacy issue UI. This should enable us to iterate on the new work item UI while delivering net-new value to our wider community (~\"group::product planning\" should feel empowered to do the same in parallel with `Feature`!)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "d1d5b4e9851d820de0a3d8c77f94a4ab74a582c7", "created_at": "2021-11-08 14:41:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-08 14:41:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 733917730, "note": "@uhlexsis we made some modifications to the ownership above since your comment. \n\nLet's regroup and figure out what we need to launch the items that are blocking ~\"group::project management\".\n\nRight now, we'll have our own path to ship the parity for the hierarchy widget onto the legacy issue view and the template for work item hierarchies.\n\nAnything that is \"upgraded\" functionality can probably move out of this initiative once we create the issues.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "d1d5b4e9851d820de0a3d8c77f94a4ab74a582c7", "created_at": "2021-11-16 00:31:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-16 00:31:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1354120307, "note": "Alright, thanks for the quick reply!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10166363, "discussion_id": "34c474f960e4436f9b696f1c403b52840a682268", "created_at": "2023-04-15 21:20:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-18 14:57:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1353168672, "note": "Hey thanks @mariusaarsnes for showing your interest! \n\nMigrating epics to work items will unlock dozens of feature improvements and resolve bug issues just by being on the shared work items framework. Notable improvements on day 1 will be assignees, milestones, **templates** and nesting that carries through to tasks which will allow for rolled up features like total weight of an epic.\n\nOur current timeline lands us migrating in Q3 this year, but this is our best guess at this time and can change due to unforeseen reasons. Please let me know if you have any questions!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "34c474f960e4436f9b696f1c403b52840a682268", "created_at": "2023-04-14 14:11:57 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-18 14:13:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1128126482, "note": "Please help me think right.\n\nIf everything is moving to a work_item - widget model of working, then why is **Design** a widget ? :thinking: . Designs now are sort of a complete entity in itself, multiple people collaborate on it, it has threads and dirverse set of metadata attached to it.\n\nTo me it makes sense to move it to a dedicated work item and have it work like how all work items would work. That includes it being linkable to other work items. That would only strengthen the design system management in Gitlab and help remove confusion.\n\nCoz right now 2 things really are keeping me from understanding this whole move towards work items. One is Tasks being called as special work items and the other is the design management.\n\nCan a task have a design_work with it ? Sure . Can task have tasks ? why not. Can a epic be attached to a task? Perhaps ? To me it feels like if we start thinking about use cases and start putting guard rails around the concept then one has to think about all the possible use cases and thats kinda hard to predict ahead of time.\n\nImho we have to treat basically a flat list of work_items and let them mix and match with all the possible combinations to suite their use cases best.\n\nIf anyone could please explain these 2 anomalies that would be great. Coz to me it felt like we are moving away from confusing exceptions over time. Thanks", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12672053, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-07 12:50:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-12 19:06:20 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 12672053, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2022-10-07 13:01:03 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1133895567, "note": "@amandarueda Thanks for the reply.\n\nI have been looking into this for a few days now and have started to get some Idea as to what the overall direction of work items is. I might be wrong, but it seems like designs are being put forward as a widget in form of an app rather than as a work-item. Right now we create an issue and have designs at an LFS attachment item on it. Tasks however are a genuine work-item entities and can be attached to possibly any work-item, works well. \n\nMy argument is Design should be given the same functionality as as work-items, coz merely treating as a widget does not do it justice, some issues are purely designed focussed. They need their own special UX, the need is always gonna grow.\n\nWork items folks might argue that one can always make a custom work-item and name it as design. The design widget is just a file upload widget anyway. That makes sense as well, but not totally imho.\n\nI think designs should be added as a default work-item for Gitlab and must be given special treatment, like tasks are right now. That would help promote it as a designer friendly platform. We must treat design work as a first class citizen. By treating it as a widget would just put it in the back burner and we miss out on a good opportunity, coz frankly no other project management app has that right now.\n\nI hope we could have some discussions on it, perhaps there already has been. I couldn't find any issues on it though.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12672053, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-13 01:53:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-13 01:53:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1134071928, "note": "One of the goals that I think is to **simplify** this issuable system that currently works in gitlab. Some things are widgets , some are issues. Some are attached to something, some are not. For this to bring any simplicity we have to simplify and minimise the vocabulary.\n\nRight now the current direction points to scenario where anything that has collaborative work on it is called a **work-item**. Fields on the work-item entities are called **widgets**. All work-items have this **flexible relationship model** where users can mix and match to model our their project management needs.\n\nSo task-work-item can be **attached** to an issue-work-item then it can also be a **standalone**. Features can be modelled over this task and issue **relationship**, for example let the issue be resolved when all the tasks are done.\n\nIf designs are to be a work-item then we must **not** call it a widget ? I think we must not. We can just call it a **design-item** perhaps. Not really sure. But we must come up with a **defined vocabulary** first , so that it clears up the confusion a bit. But I get that its a WIP.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12672053, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-13 06:35:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-13 13:33:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 12672053, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2022-10-13 06:38:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1135069691, "note": "Completely agree @amandarueda! @somarandos So glad you continue to engage in this discussion as I definitely am not one one side or the other. I see both.\n\nAs a designer, I love the idea of making design a first class citizen and that some work is decidedly design first or based! I just had a similar conversation with one of my designers.\n\nI also see the road we're heading down where everything is being considered a work item. We do need user informed and validated definitions as we push forward in this territory.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 9676400, "discussion_id": "cb645904a5bbbe38cc3fcf12b105df1c88e86f7f", "created_at": "2022-10-13 17:26:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-10-14 02:15:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487390960, "note": "Hello @EHickson! Thank you for letting us know that the customer is very interested in our initiative!\n\nWe are actively working on feature parity in work items for epics and issues. As of now, we are targeting migration of epics this calendar year with migration of issues shortly thereafter, but please note that timelines may be subject to adjustments as we progress.\n\nOur team is committed to delivering the best possible solution, and we appreciate any feedback that can help us enhance the product. Could you kindly provide more insights into the customer's specific pain points or use cases related to this initiative? Understanding their needs will enable us to prioritize and optimize value.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "3811584f5297d6b246a7bcadc28f192053b35f6f", "created_at": "2023-07-25 15:02:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 15:02:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1485793144, "note": "Hi @amandarueda, is this still a possibility for Q3, or is there an updated roadmap for it? A customer is very interested and has been looking into the documentation. Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 12045345, "discussion_id": "3811584f5297d6b246a7bcadc28f192053b35f6f", "created_at": "2023-07-24 17:03:17 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 15:02:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 273703, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1491461134, "note": "Sure @gweaver :bow: Will do , thank you :pray:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 11701495, "discussion_id": "15cd839647aa3c49578401c2aabde297c0069fc8", "created_at": "2023-07-28 07:25:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-28 07:25:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 909555, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1490726461, "note": "@deepika.guliani can you please add weights to each of the issues within this epic? If you don't have enough information to do so for an issue, please ping myself and @esybrant. Thanks!\n\ncc @donaldcook", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "15cd839647aa3c49578401c2aabde297c0069fc8", "created_at": "2023-07-27 15:27:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-28 07:25:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 909555, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1307817630, "note": "Some thoughts:\n\n- We should look at our own models (such as code suggestions) and surrounding components (such as model registry, data extractor, etc) that Mon\u2019s team has built / is building, in addition to looking at open source and commercial options.\n- Individual engineering teams (and their stable counterparts) know their parts of the product better than other teams. We should leverage them as they evaluate AI on where it can best fit in that part of the product and also doing prototype integrations with them.\n- Prototypes should not get to customer production use until AI PM approves it (@nkhalwadekar and/or @tmccaslin )\n  \nThere are many factors to consider with AI including:\n- Cost of hosting/licensing solutions - they can be very expensive depending on how they are implemented and for what use cases and number of active users\n- When using commercial solutions, we can\u2019t productionize until not only the cost is taken into account, but also our terms of service (which stipulates which 3rd parties we send customer data to)\n- Quality of the models - in general and for our  use cases.  Example would be generating code suggestions for Ruby on Rails in general (which are getting from open source) and generating code suggestions for GitLab CI YML files (which we building our own model for)\n- Are the models trained on data that causes licensing or legal issues?  \n- Who is taking liability if the model\u2019s recommendations are problematic?\n- Models can introduce security issues (such as code suggestions recommending passwords that are leaked because the model was trained on them) \n- Models can have bias that produce non-inclusive and ethically problematic output \n- Models can output data that harms privacy (names, phone numbers, email addresses, etc).", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4708570, "discussion_id": "38c467c1a8117486b16b4c6a7484933312d88c2d", "created_at": "2023-03-09 16:35:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-30 06:21:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4708570, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-03-13 16:23:31 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1318270357, "note": "Setting up a working group to coordinate across teams on this - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/121574", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "c6cee8627f6b877803f70d63c6c9528ea9691a70", "created_at": "2023-03-17 09:54:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-30 06:22:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1314291876, "note": "I don't know how to say this other than just saying it... anything that we do with the expectation that might find its way into the product _must_ be centered around the user, their goals (i.e. what Job are they hiring GitLab to help them achieve), and their needs. If any experiment dreamed up can't point towards a specific user and the Job it will help fulfill then you have to seriously ask yourself if it's worth spending effort on.\n\nWe're going to add such content bullets to the issue template that @mray2020 alluded to above but until then, as I'm getting the feeling patience isn't of the essence, everyone needs to keep this in mind as they \"explore + brainstorm what things we might or should solve\".\n\ncc/ @katiemacoy @nkhalwadekar @tmccaslin", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "b3603529d6b9ad34271a272fb09ef43c27d1ac7f", "created_at": "2023-03-14 22:54:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-30 06:22:14 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1312890886, "note": "@mray2020 This was created without the knowledge of the AI strategy in parallel to give all groups access to competitive AI tooling asap for creating \"infrastructure\" to go from experimentation -> validation -> production.\n\nI think the rapid prototyping is a good first step but we should have a clear path and work in parallel to be able to get such use cases into production following up on that. We should take the discussion into Epics/Issues rather then google docs to help collaboration and transparency especially across multiple groups and stages.\n\nTotally agree but that not all of them are ML but that is where the exploration should start to brainstorm topics that need to be solved which might be done by ML, automation or something else. \n\nThe goals of the integration strategy in my opinion are:\n* MLOps\n  * Get a general alignment and path forward what AI \"systems\" (providers + models + etc) are available to groups and work on getting them production ready with additional knowhow/consultancy. \n  * Get internal encapsulation API ready (Rails) so at a later point systems below can be exchanged\n  * Knowledge Sharing with teams on all the learnings\n  * Get ready to run those systems on a production level as so far the usage is minimal, provide timeline when each of the topics is ready for primetime\n  * Fine tune internal toolings\n* At the same time have all stages/groups work on \n  * exploration+brainstorming what are things we might or should solve. \n  * Categorise them by tools (different kinds of AI, automation, etc.) and methods how they could be done\n  * Start external exploration + experiments for example with the knowledge that MLOps has choosen OpenaAI for this type of work\n  * Validation with a mini prototype\n  * Work with MLOps on topics like possible costs\n  * Decision by product + eng team to get them ready for production\n  * Development Team of that Group implements the feature if greenlighted", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "b3603529d6b9ad34271a272fb09ef43c27d1ac7f", "created_at": "2023-03-14 09:39:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-14 09:39:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1303602306, "note": "@timzallmann , we should be perhaps adding all the work done by the ModelOps team as well which includes\n features ( Suggested Reviewer)  as well as models ( Code Suggestions and More)? WDYT? \n\nThis is the core of the ModelOps Group of using Machine Learning in Workflow Automation and AI Assisted @tmccaslin can speak more about it .\n\nWe have several LLM models , NL as well as PL that our team is actively tuning and working on \n\nWe actively also evaluate pre-trained models ( LLama , Alphacode , Code-gen , Codex , Davinci to name few)  to understand how to tune for various use cases, and also prompt engineering. \n\nPrompt engineering is a sub-class of NLP and still needs specific skill set and in ModelOps we have engineers who specialise only on prompt engineering beyond just prompt collection , but engineering of using patterned NLP techniques , some includes ( structured  , sucessive and many more specialization and techniques) \n\nHappy to have a sync chat as well on this on the specific use-cases ? \n\n cc @tmccaslin , @wayne", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5749302, "discussion_id": "a509dceffec8a60742e4768964b1a105e4494ccf", "created_at": "2023-03-07 09:53:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-07 10:34:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 5749302, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-03-07 10:34:26 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1302332443, "note": "Absolutely! Just added it to the top description", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "d1048995dd55ed767d6496c4969ac989bb76a0ba", "created_at": "2023-03-06 13:50:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-06 13:50:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1301461018, "note": "@timzallmann I wonder if [tanuki-stan](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/ml-ops/tanuki-stan) could be considered a done experiment? It's been running successfully for more than a year and has done a lot to help ease the burden of triaging issues by automatically applying labels.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 655908, "discussion_id": "d1048995dd55ed767d6496c4969ac989bb76a0ba", "created_at": "2023-03-05 22:53:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-06 13:50:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1303719017, "note": "@mray2020 Added links to the description on Code Suggestions and ModelOps in general. Let me know if ther are better SSOT's", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "a509dceffec8a60742e4768964b1a105e4494ccf", "created_at": "2023-03-07 11:00:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-08 00:45:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1303666189, "note": "@mray2020 Thanks for the summary of current activities apart from Suggested reviewers and AI Assisted as I am very well aware about those 2 but to have a wider understanding. \n\nThis Epic and sub issues is for exploring an updated strategic focus to give all teams/groups asap access to AI services (whatever they are self hosted or bought services) in the sense of AI as a commodity then a speciality done by a specific section for everyone (where this section might be the ones giving knowhow and providing consultancy to teams). With a focus of rather using something built rather then self building to have competitive tools at hand for each team with a quick time to market. For this we need to make a decision what to use company wide to enable teams to get started.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "a509dceffec8a60742e4768964b1a105e4494ccf", "created_at": "2023-03-07 10:28:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-09 08:53:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359638125, "note": "Not sure if there is an issue yet, but previously @a_akgun was prototyping this sort of thing. [Slack thread](https://gitlab.slack.com/archives/C02PF508L/p1678450219905939) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW3bjaTexag", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4234774, "discussion_id": "bbc0f816f93f01699a47ec5986626bdc5eade3ff", "created_at": "2023-04-20 00:22:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-20 00:22:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359640444, "note": "Please consider adding an issue https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/?sort=created_date&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=wg-ai-integration&label_name%5B%5D=experiment%20idea&first_page_size=20", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4234774, "discussion_id": "bbc0f816f93f01699a47ec5986626bdc5eade3ff", "created_at": "2023-04-20 00:27:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-20 00:27:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1312805451, "note": "Thanks, @timzallmann , for clarifying. Is this inspired by the [AI Strategy](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sjQ7OclmP76td5P-FTwjbJn2mg5y6DjDiAgQLdjslXI/edit#heading=h.mhxax8msgkdv)? Product has now iterated on the request in this doc and is moving forward with the [Rapid Prototyping for ML strategy](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y-g4DfxKgBRg7vJCGCIGIKL-XWtajyNQSXYldYWgAt4/edit). Instead of having an alternative strategy as detailed in this issue , can we align and contribute to the existing prototyping strategy and then update the issue/epics as needed?\n\n@tmccaslin  will be sharing more details this coming week on the Prototype Strategy. \n\nLooking at the use-cases, many of the use cases are not Generative AI and some are not ML use-cases, as they seem to be  primarily automation . In this issue it looks the proposal is  currently focused on the supply (Open AI LLM) and trying to validate demand? Is it accurate for me to say that is the overall strategy and have we validated if that aligns with our overall product strategy and how? Can you clarify the goals and success of this integration strategy and individual prototypes further . \n\nIn my experience, ML prototyping is not new to ML . Rapid Experimentation is a part of the ML environment. To do that we need to understand the success of the prototype and value behind it.  Simple questions as stated below can add further value. What we are doing here may not be a prototype. My reading of it is that this is exploring technology for an art of possibility. \n \nFurther our team also will be creating a template for it and will be sharing more details which would include the following questions and more.\n\n1.Primary objective of the prototype\n\n2.Secondary Objective\n\n3.Success Metrics ( List of Metrics )\n\n4.How does this predictive application aid with decision making and human judgment for the task ?\n\n5.Video/Demo/ Code Repo\n\n6.Should this be a viable feature and why ?\n\n7.Work estimate and skill sets needed to build a viable feature\n\n8.Data Limitation\n\n9.Legal Limitation\n\n10.Ethics Limitation\n\n11.Cost Aspects (of commercial licensed systems and/or hosting costs for GCP)\n\n12. Ability to implement for self hosted customers (both internet connected and air-gapped)\n\n13.Ability to install for self hosted customers\n\n\nWe will be creating an API that can be used on endeavors like this: See : https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/modelops/team-tasks/-/issues/15#note_1306881600 for more details. As mentioned above , @tmccaslin will be sharing more this coming week\n\n\nLet me know your thoughts.  I would be happy to discuss on a Zoom call as well if you would like.\n\ncc @wayne , @hbenson , @tmccaslin, @jmandell", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5749302, "discussion_id": "b3603529d6b9ad34271a272fb09ef43c27d1ac7f", "created_at": "2023-03-14 08:57:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-22 02:52:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359643522, "note": "Thanks Phil ! Opened https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/408147", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2535118, "discussion_id": "bbc0f816f93f01699a47ec5986626bdc5eade3ff", "created_at": "2023-04-20 00:35:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-20 00:35:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1304259068, "note": "@mray2020 would you spell out the acronyms in your message above please?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4554599, "discussion_id": "a509dceffec8a60742e4768964b1a105e4494ccf", "created_at": "2023-03-07 16:20:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-07 16:20:03 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1304332863, "note": "@m_gill \n\n- NL - Natural Language\n- PL - Programing Lanaguage\n- NLP - Natural Language processing \n- LLM - Large langue model", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5329074, "discussion_id": "a509dceffec8a60742e4768964b1a105e4494ccf", "created_at": "2023-03-07 17:10:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-07 17:10:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1322409037, "note": "Building against OpenAI would be a good first iteration, but it also ties us to their API.\n\nCame across [this list of ChatGPT alternatives](https://github.com/nichtdax/awesome-totally-open-chatgpt). OpenAI have a headstart and plenty of funding, but there will soon be a choice of similar products, some of which will be FOSS.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4391348, "discussion_id": "38a9d888eabf41101297b999589f2554213f5e8f", "created_at": "2023-03-21 13:43:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-21 13:43:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1322423581, "note": "@timzallmann Your point that we want to consume APIs as a first iteration rather than train our own models makes a lot of sense. We also have relatively small amounts of training data if we look at Issues only.\n\nAs some point though, we may also want to develop an internal training program for engineers who would like to transition to ML. We already have:\n- Some of the best engineers in the world, who _could_ cross-train\n- Our O'Reilly subscription has a _lot_ of ML/AI training materials, more is available at low-cost elsewhere (Coursera, etc)\n- An easy path from Ruby to Python, for BE engineers\n\nTo make a training program happen, we would need to invest a bit of leadership from some experienced ML engineers, and time allocated out of deliverable time.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4391348, "discussion_id": "fa1dfa5bea7784d97120f23d7732354ead2d5adb", "created_at": "2023-03-21 13:50:58 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-21 14:47:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4391348, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-03-21 13:55:23 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1322520502, "note": "I :100: agree with the first 3 points: we need to enable every engineering team to play and prototype with shallow AI to build short internal demos.\n\nI also :100: agree with all the concerns: all these points must be considered before shipping as part of the product. Ideally that overhead only impacts successful demos and use cases we have agreed to integrate into the product.\n\nTo enable the creation of demos by every engineering team, I'd suggest to add the ability to [gitlabsandbox.cloud](https://gitlabsandbox.cloud) to provision experimental OpenAI API keys with a limited budget or to define some other well defined process.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10539876, "discussion_id": "38c467c1a8117486b16b4c6a7484933312d88c2d", "created_at": "2023-03-21 14:33:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-21 14:33:51 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1322547688, "note": "My 2 cents is that prompt engineering is quite different from general AI/ML techniques and thus a relatively new field. Its low complexity to end users is what makes it so appealing to begin with. I believe the main challenge to cover use cases successfully is to be creative in the way we leverage the technology and workaround its current limitations.\n\nTraining would be essential if we were to build our own models, but in the context of prompt engineering I'd like to believe that anyone interested can pretty much just start and build demos. The main blocker I see is that we are not issuing API keys. Relates to https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9997#note_1322520502", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10539876, "discussion_id": "fa1dfa5bea7784d97120f23d7732354ead2d5adb", "created_at": "2023-03-21 14:47:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-21 15:45:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 10539876, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-03-21 14:48:59 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1322659000, "note": "Thank you @dbolkensteyn I agree with this, esp. for a MVC. \n\nLonger term picture, we may want to embrace ML more directly, even for prompt engineering, so we better understand the technologies we are using and also our customer's needs.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4391348, "discussion_id": "fa1dfa5bea7784d97120f23d7732354ead2d5adb", "created_at": "2023-03-21 15:47:08 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-21 15:47:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1304341462, "note": "@timzallmann, @mray2020 and I discussed at length last night a way to help achieve what you're speaking about with `give all teams/groups asap access to AI services`. I'd like to align with your plans and see how we can unite our efforts. We want to help all of GitLab leverage AI, but we also want to make sure we are doing it responsibly as AI/ML systems, especially when built by other companies in opaque systems we don't control, can produce very wild outputs.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5329074, "discussion_id": "a509dceffec8a60742e4768964b1a105e4494ccf", "created_at": "2023-03-07 17:17:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-07 17:49:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1330127563, "note": "@timzallmann, I was talking with @sarahwaldner about the recent buzz of [ChatGPT plugins](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-plugins) and [ChatGPT Code Interpreter plugin](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-plugins#code-interpreter). Though there're issues, like dependency and data privacy, to be figured out, perhaps there could be some lightweight experiments that can be built as first iteration, like a GitLab plugin for our public repos or Handbook. It can also be some Hackathon projects.\n\ncc: @joshlambert", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4888751, "discussion_id": "e60d9d57417a99bfab8129f42e15b32e3db3ffc6", "created_at": "2023-03-27 19:25:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-27 21:15:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1330261778, "note": "@changzhengliu @sarahwaldner - sounds good to me! We have https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/386992 which can be used or converted to an epic, which I think covers most of the current examples like Bloop.\n\nOnly item I'd like to ensure we do is to continue to ship Zoekt https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9404, unless we feel like our analysis of it's value has changed. At the time, we felt that we would still need a 100% accurate and reliable search engine, and that most AI/ML tools would not provide fully reliable and repeatable results at this time.\n\nAssuming that still holds true, shipping that would then allow us to focus a large chunk of the team on building out ML-based features which is likely the future.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 926632, "discussion_id": "e60d9d57417a99bfab8129f42e15b32e3db3ffc6", "created_at": "2023-03-27 21:15:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-27 21:15:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1330381884, "note": "@timzallmann ,\n\nI believe a year from now the rate of new code that is being generated due to AI will lead to the following:\n\n- a need for a place to store all of that Code (GitLab)\n- an easy method for seamlessly navigating from the code generated from AI to be imported by a click of a button to open up code in the Web IDE\n-  ChatGPT and other AI generating code quickly at a much higher rate than \n- AI generated code can be reverse engineered to create requirements and store them in our requirements feature...\n\nUltimately, I like the idea of receiving a large amount of code and reverse engineering it into the different categories in our product.  My thoughts are that at some point engineers will use AI to generate a baseline code base that they will build on top of.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4124757, "discussion_id": "3916951f857eeccb31f65585e0ca1d6f0d7aa389", "created_at": "2023-03-28 00:56:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-28 00:56:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1330313705, "note": "@joshlambert \n\n> Only item I'd like to ensure we do is to continue to ship Zoekt https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9404\n\nYes absolutely. The planned hackathon is just one day. The source code team also has a bunch of critical stuff to burn down too.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "e60d9d57417a99bfab8129f42e15b32e3db3ffc6", "created_at": "2023-03-27 22:21:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-28 00:59:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1330516662, "note": "@dbolkensteyn , We are working on ML prototyping and building an API for easy access not just to open AI but all the models within ModelOps. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/modelops/team-tasks/-/issues/15#note_1320238697\n\nFor Prompt Engineering , there is various level and based on the use case one will need a good understanding of NLP . We are working also on a framework for rapid ML Prototyping and moving that to production", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5749302, "discussion_id": "fa1dfa5bea7784d97120f23d7732354ead2d5adb", "created_at": "2023-03-28 04:50:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-28 18:47:25 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1330153410, "note": "Thanks @changzhengliu!\n\n@andr3 I would love for us to include the Global Search team in our hackathon on the Source Code team? I think that our respective groups would work really well together given the parallels between our domains of expertise.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "e60d9d57417a99bfab8129f42e15b32e3db3ffc6", "created_at": "2023-03-27 19:48:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-28 22:17:06 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1337373486, "note": "Thank you so much @tlinz", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3796140, "discussion_id": "bbe9e8e0b0f3acdb0d38f7bd49a9a09f45705ca9", "created_at": "2023-03-31 18:45:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-31 20:35:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1314634137, "note": "@jmandell Have you taken a look at the issues of the epic? Cause that is exactly what we are doing together with Product in a great collaboration so far - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/393884\n\nAlso the Epic itself states exactly that user centric approach to seperate hype to impactfulness for users - https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9997#increase-productivity-and-time-to-results-for-our-users\n\nThis is really about getting powerful tools to the individual teams as soon as possible. So far the ML topics have been driven forward on specific certain projects with mixed results by a specific team but we need to enable all teams to integrate AI capabilities into their area in a timely manner as time to market is a vital part on this.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1149402, "discussion_id": "b3603529d6b9ad34271a272fb09ef43c27d1ac7f", "created_at": "2023-03-15 08:01:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-15 08:01:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1337164157, "note": "Hi @mle, @andr3, @timzallmann and @sarahwaldner,\n\nI have created the first feature iteration after having aligned with @mle this morning and @andr3 this afternoon and after having taking @timzallmann's [feedback](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/402649#note_1336757871) into account: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/403718+. \n\nI have also created two dependencies:\n- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/403727+ as part of https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10221+\n- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/403728+ as part of https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10219+\n\nIt may seem overkill to have three issues for this very simple iteration, but I want to make sure that @mle and @jmandell feel empowered to think this UI not just for this SCM feature but many AI features to come as explained in each of these two epics. So, that we create an aligned experience across all AI features in GitLab. \n\n@mle please create simple UI for this first iteration in your Monday morning. This is a higher priority than the other work. There is no need to make this perfect, we are aiming at being fast. Ideally, @andr3's team can start working on this when the sun comes around to them on Monday. @andr3 and I have already discussed what can be sacrificed from our current plan for %15.11.  \n\nI will be out of office on Monday and Tuesday. Please, DM me via slack if you have any questions. I will try to check regularly.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10822493, "discussion_id": "bbe9e8e0b0f3acdb0d38f7bd49a9a09f45705ca9", "created_at": "2023-03-31 16:12:51 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-31 18:45:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1347185561, "note": "@timzallmann Can you please review all related Issue to ensure they are marked confidential, per SAFE guidelines? Thank you.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303163, "discussion_id": "ec1977036345a2b16e66ffc3554118f5e04f93ad", "created_at": "2023-04-10 18:13:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 16:47:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1332128275, "note": "> @andr3 I would love for us to include the Global Search team in our hackathon on the Source Code team? I think that our respective groups would work really well together given the parallels between our domains of expertise.\n\n@sarahwaldner absolutely agreed! Thanks for bringing it up.\n\n@joshlambert @changzhengliu FWIW the \"hackathon of rapid prototypes\" we have thought out is a very informal effort to allow our engineers to play with some of the ideas floating around during one day so our teams can level-up together at the same time. Also, in doing so, we aim to plant some seeds to empower future developments that will actually make it into the product by making our teams more familiar with the topic and how to integrate these concepts into our areas of GitLab in a more consistent way. It's not aimed at covering full feature development for shipping to production.\n\nWe have started a rough draft issue for the hackathon here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/create-stage/-/issues/13138 (We'll probably use this issue to iterate on the draft but will move it to a global project for more inclusivity.) Feel free to drop your feedback or suggestions there. Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 853414, "discussion_id": "e60d9d57417a99bfab8129f42e15b32e3db3ffc6", "created_at": "2023-03-28 22:33:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-29 18:02:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 853414, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-03-28 22:34:13 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359210752, "note": "Per today's discussion (https://docs.google.com/document/d/19jVbWVYUPW3m7d2SzsXa2zXIAW7pSb2tdQ-AXWzT_DE/edit#bookmark=id.vmtuyskyof5o) I believe we can make this Epic public.  Can you confirm and then, if appropriate, do so @timzallmann or @hbenson or @tmccaslin ?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4708570, "discussion_id": "ec1977036345a2b16e66ffc3554118f5e04f93ad", "created_at": "2023-04-19 16:47:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-19 16:47:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1359492684, "note": "Is there an issue about converting natural text to a complete `mermaidjs` code block ? Personally, this will be a big productivity booster for me :)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2535118, "discussion_id": "bbc0f816f93f01699a47ec5986626bdc5eade3ff", "created_at": "2023-04-19 21:32:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-20 00:22:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1316037592, "note": "hi @timzallmann thanks for pointing this out, I'm very happy to see it and hear that users are in the foreground. The only thing I think that's missing is some specifics as it sounds a little more on the general side, though it's great to see the focus on users and providing them with value to be sure! I'd personally like to see more specific details about how we should do this all with a focus on our user's jobs and needs. These are meant to be written in a way that should foster this type of innovative thought as they are technology agnostic. Allowing us to envision how such solutions as AI might help them achieve these goals.\n\nI think we're both on the same page here, so I don't mean to bemoan the point too much. I think I'd just like to see things like our Jobs referenced a little more explicitly to really help drive that home. Jobs will likely end up being a component of the template that the ~\"group::ai assisted\" team is working on now so I think we'll be in good shape.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5291762, "discussion_id": "b3603529d6b9ad34271a272fb09ef43c27d1ac7f", "created_at": "2023-03-15 21:44:52 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-03-15 21:44:52 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1363741298, "note": "Mermaidjs generation was straightforward, but feel free to ping me in case :slight_smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4409816, "discussion_id": "bbc0f816f93f01699a47ec5986626bdc5eade3ff", "created_at": "2023-04-24 06:10:45 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-04-24 06:10:45 UTC", "noteable_id": 762022, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1524013485, "note": "@egrieff \n\n> `work_item_type` change is not allowed for legacy issues, they can only be changed to be an incident or a test case, the legacy types.\n\nyes, we shouldn't let changing issue to ticket via UI/API, but we can change them from the migration", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3714742, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-23 05:39:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-23 05:39:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 999847483, "note": "@uhlexsis I love this as an MVC. It's a pattern that is very effective. I saw this used heavily with Groups CMS testing. \n\ncc: @gweaver @nickleonard", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-21 19:30:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-21 19:30:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 999873121, "note": "@uhlexsis @mushakov what happens when a task is related to more than 1 issue? `issue_links` have a `many-to-many` relationship. The breadcrumb on the task detail view also appears to be missing the work item ID :thinking:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-21 20:01:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-21 20:01:47 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1495829648, "note": "@amandarueda Maybe consider including `Test Case`, `Ticket`, `Incident`, and `Requirement` in the table as they all are or will be work items in the future.  Along the lines of @nickbrandt question :point_up:, here are the non-work item relationships that currently exist for issues that we'll need to solve for via https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7105+:\n\n* Vulnerabilities\n* Alerts\n* Branches\n* Merge Requests\n* Feature Flags\n* ...maybe some other object I can't think of off the top of my head :blush:\n\nThe question is where those relationships are visualized within the work item detail view:\n\n1. Are these non-work item relationships co-mingled in the `linked items` widget?\n2. Are all non-work item relationship captured in one or more separate widgets?\n\nWe have high confidence that we want to introduce an optional \"parent/child\" type relationship between work items and merge requests/branches, which would behave different than being loosely related (mostly for analytics/reporting/auditing/compliance/traceability use cases). I've also seen open issues asking for the ability to link MRs directly to epics. We also need to take into consideration what happens with all of these linked items when a work item type is changed :thinking: \n\nLastly, I can't help but wonder if we'll end up with the same problem for OKRs being only loosely related to other work item types. How do you know which work items are implementing something to drive the O or KR vs. just being loosely related :thinking:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-01 15:17:22 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 15:18:58 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4303289, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-01 15:18:58 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 715366862, "note": "@uhlexsis thank you for uploading the flow chart and the designs for the component! \n\nI like the simplicity of the widget and this is a great start!\n\nSome initial thoughts:\n\nConsider posting [these designs](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/uploads/52bdcb764a3eb40f51b0016ad3baa3cd/MVC_child_flow_2.png) at 100% screen size in a new issue with design management so we can comment on the whole flow and get detailed. I really like designs no. 12 and 20 (summaries and re-order) and I would like to discuss them! \n\nIt would also be great if we had an example design that has 10-15 children and multiple indentations of nesting.\n\nTo be ready to go for parity with current issues and epics, we will still need the following to be able to fully scope MVC 2:\n\n- Related items (Linked issues, Related MRs) and how they display and interact with the widget\n- How does the whole container work when you have many issues inside it? \n- How do work items with 7-10 levels of nesting look? How will it look on mobile vs desktop?\n- Decide on which of your designs should be the collapsed view and agree on the amount of summary data (design no. 20) it holds. There are 3 good options!\n\nOther non-blocking but open questions:\n\n- When we have different colors for work items, how will they interact with the red and green colors used for status and blocking in the work item row?\n\nExcited to see your work here!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4669960, "discussion_id": "c2b1e018373d86bfa2a51981bc58beab2133fdf6", "created_at": "2021-10-27 05:23:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-10-27 07:28:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 715459355, "note": "Thanks for the feedback @cdybenko I'm OOO but wanted to leave quick replies in case it is blocking you.\n\n> Consider posting [these designs](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/uploads/52bdcb764a3eb40f51b0016ad3baa3cd/MVC_child_flow_2.png) at 100% screen size in a ....\n\nThese designs are already in the Design Management section in the issues I attached to this epic. \n\nI am using this image as a recap of the walkthrough thoughts if that makes sense. \n- #12 is semi-dependent on MVC 1 and what editing interactions we intended for these items, and also isn't an experience that currently exists (editing inline), which is why I didn't share anything too in depth and didn't include it in the issues. I have assumptions I can follow up on if editing items inline is MVC.\n- #20 was more of an exploration that I was sharing that was mentioned in the walkthrough and not MVC. Everything else MVC is in the issues.\n\n\n> It would also be great if we had an example design that has 10-15 children and multiple indentations of nesting.\n> To be ready to go for parity with current issues and epics, we will still .....\n\nI was basing MVC 2 reqs off of the [planning sheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cm5kkRk7fsvSJr2sFaHJk1-p1WLBEO9wveOYLsYAFfM/edit?usp=sharing) and thinking we are starting small, similar to MVC 1.\n- I believe we discussed only one level of child nesting for this iteration. We can expand it if this is needed immediately or blocking.\n- My understanding based on our syncs was we wanted to focus solely on parent<>child items for this iteration and then move into other relationship types (or \"to-dos\" as I was referencing them sometimes). The requirements mention \"Be able to add only child \"Issues\" to the Feature\" for example. I was hesitant to make the MVC too large.\n- #20 is just ideation.\n\nI think what might be confusing here is that I used to have the \"MVC 2\" broken down into different iterations (MVC 2.A, MVC 2.B, etc) based on what seemed essential to work on first when iterating toward parity, but removed those items when trying to streamline the epic documentation based on feedback. You can see [what I based the current design on through this epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6674) that used to be attach to this.\n\n^ Are these all blocking the MVC of nesting child items or parent hierarchy? If so, maybe we can add epics/issues for everything needed to be completed beyond the basic nesting of child items? \n\nI'll reattach the MVC A, B, & C epics that I created here previously that was my prior attempt to scope this. Feel free to pick them apart and reorganize them, create new items, or remove them again- whatever is helpful for you!\n\n> * When we have different colors for work items, how will they interact with the red and green colors used for status and blocking in the work item row?\n\nThe different colors _are_ indicating status (kind of like we do now), so it's the same thing. The icon could then reenforce the status so the user doesn't need to rely solely on color. I was just playing around with this though, not focusing on it for MVC. Now you got me thinking about custom colored child items though... :thinking: :laughing:\n\n\n\n_edit_ I removed the walkthrough screens because they seemed to cause confusion.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "c2b1e018373d86bfa2a51981bc58beab2133fdf6", "created_at": "2021-10-27 07:28:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-11-15 23:42:20 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3617348, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2021-10-27 11:35:53 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 717835779, "note": "I didn't see this until after @badnewsblair , sorry about that! We ended up having more of a general 1-1. I added an agenda item to the work items weekly to go through this and refine the initiative.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "c2b1e018373d86bfa2a51981bc58beab2133fdf6", "created_at": "2021-10-28 21:26:28 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-10-28 21:26:28 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1494440337, "note": "@amandarueda those seem to make sense from my POV. One question, do we plan to offer linking of **related** MRs? If so, do we need to add that to [this table](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6286#linked-related)? Or is this only focused solely on `work item` <> `work item` relationships?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5041243, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-07-31 21:56:50 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 21:56:50 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 997801018, "note": "@nickleonard would you be able to whip something up for showing ancestors within a work item? I reckon' we should collaborate closely with Alexis and Melissa here. I also think it would be nice to show the ancestors in the same context as we would show children. \n\nFeedback from a few customers indicates that showing the full lineage provides a lot of helpful context and grouping the relationships (ancestors, children, blocked, blocking, related) as close together in the UI would provide the most efficiency.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-20 14:12:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-21 18:45:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1004249081, "note": "> I think we already have the API for getting the parent of a Task, so this would theoretically be a front-end change to show the parent issue (read-only) in a Task. @jprovaznik can you confirm my assumption here about the hierarchy widget GraphQL?\n\n@gweaver correct, you can get work item's parent from graphql API using the new hierarchy widget (still behind a feature flag), example request in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/88429#how-to-set-up-and-validate-locally", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 1642716, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-24 10:44:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-27 16:48:53 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 716397251, "note": "I set up some time for us ma\u00f1ana to break this MVC down and document requirements. Then we can more quickly iterate through smaller design pieces! \ud83c\udfa8", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "c2b1e018373d86bfa2a51981bc58beab2133fdf6", "created_at": "2021-10-27 18:52:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-10-27 18:52:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 716405341, "note": "Hey @uhlexsis, would it be possible to get an invite as well? Thanks!", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 9676400, "discussion_id": "c2b1e018373d86bfa2a51981bc58beab2133fdf6", "created_at": "2021-10-27 19:04:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-10-27 19:04:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 694138272, "note": "@pedroms Here's MVC 2 for work items.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4554611, "discussion_id": "ed2f972da6613074aef5d637454f64d8d78fceba", "created_at": "2021-10-04 16:11:54 UTC", "updated_at": "2021-10-04 16:11:54 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 996036925, "note": "@mushakov Tasks will always be visible within either a modal or a separate page because references to them show up all over the place (i.e. any markdown field across the product, todo, activity feedback, ...) -- which is why they need to have a canonical dedicated route / detail view to serve as a SSoT when the Task  hasn't been / can't be updated to open in a modal within the context where it is being referenced. \n\nI do not think the information is critical when viewing within the modal on the issue the Task is a child of, but becomes critical the moment the Task is viewed within any other context outside of the issue.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-17 19:24:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-17 20:34:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4303289, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2022-06-17 19:27:07 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 995898302, "note": "@mushakov @uhlexsis Given how events have played out with Tasks tentatively shipping in 15.1 and child widget on issues in 15.2 there will be a lot of Tasks with the \"related\" relationship type. \n\nBased on recent feedback from dogfooding tasks (https://gitlab.slack.com/archives/C72HPNV97/p1655474005087609), there is a lot of confusion over what a task belongs to. It might be worth thinking about prioritizing:\n\n1. Showing ancestor lineage on work items (think the ancestor component in an epic sidebar but integrated with the hierarchy widget) -- This will help when you drop into a work item detail view.\n2. Add \"linked work items\" widget to work items (https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7459) -- Given there will be lots of related tasks, just showing the ancestors on Tasks will not help in the case that the task is related to an issue instead of it being a child. \n3. Make it easy to change relationship type -- convert from related to child, from child to related, etc. \n\nI also noticed that right now with epics, I can make add a child epic as \"related\" to the parent epic as well. IMHO a work item should only ever be allowed to have a single relationship type to another work item. This might also make it a lot easier to expose something in the UI :shrug: Just some feedback. Take it or leave it :slight_smile:\n\n**Update:** We are not making tasks GA in 15.1, but I think the spirit of :point_up: still holds true.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-17 16:36:03 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-17 19:04:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4303289, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2022-06-17 16:49:04 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 999885454, "note": "@gweaver You are right. This pattern only works when there's a single path to get to an item.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-21 20:18:12 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-21 20:18:12 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 999844182, "note": "@gweaver @nickleonard @mushakov We were looking into the legacy view here but I agree having information about the parent is useful! It seems to me that there are perhaps a few things going on in that feedback:\n\n1. What type of work item am I looking at?\n1.  What is the context/history around the creation of this work item (who created it, when, was it created from another item, etc)?\n1. How do I access or share this work item (reference, id, url, path/parent)?\n\nI know y'all are already tinkering on these. It seems like `#3` is the pressing ask here and I agree that ideally we want that ancestor + child view to be better consolidated than it is currently.\n\nFor a quick iteration, would it be possible to add more context to the breadcrumbs? A quick idea based on what I _think_ is feasible:\n\n| Before | After |\n| ------ | ------ |\n| ![image](/uploads/8b8160db7cfc0749d6e4777e8f9eaa2f/image.png) | ![image](/uploads/da7fca61a7a80491c953b82473f42d68/image.png) |\n\nHere is also some [old ideation](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/343776) around giving the parent more emphasis.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-21 19:26:15 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-21 19:26:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1001023408, "note": "Also @uhlexsis I think we already have the API for getting the parent of a Task, so this would theoretically be a front-end change to show the parent issue (read-only) in a Task. @jprovaznik can you confirm my assumption here about the hierarchy widget GraphQL?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-22 14:38:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-22 14:38:16 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1003436414, "note": "I created [this issue](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/366211) to capture the ask. Let's continue the discussion there if we still need to hash out details.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-23 19:54:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-23 19:54:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1255685038, "note": "@danmh That helps. Thank you! I agree with what you stated that focusing on parent/child relationships seems like a good place to start, and relationship to other work items can come later. This is similar to the iteration path we are taking with OKRs :smile_cat: . \n\n@mmacfarlane @danmh Do you think there's an opportunity to use the patterns we have and introduce a \"basic\" hierarchy experience? I do also agree that, based on my review of the research, this was a big hurdle to adoption. We can augment the experience once we have more data on the aspects that @danmh describes.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-27 15:22:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-27 19:34:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1255223257, "note": "> I've placed Hierarchies as a part of Requirements Complete Maturity\n\n@mmacfarlane thanks for this! From what I remember of the customer conversations this was a big hurdle to adopting requirements management in GitLab. Do you think there is a chance it might move to be a requirement (sorry) for a viable maturity?\n\n> Are there extra features you think you'll need that are not part of what we have today?\n\n@mushakov @amandarueda @mmacfarlane as far as I can tell most of the patterns needed for a basic experience are defined already. That is, creating a child of the same type, being able to identify the parent and any children, basic management.\n\nI think some of the harder aspects are found in questions like \"How are requirements decided in an org?\" and \"Who is responsible for managing them, what does their work look like?\". I hope that being able to answer some of these will help us identify and understand any associated problems.\n\nFrom an extra feature perspective, this might mean we need different editing, managing, and reporting experiences. \n\nI'm also not confident how users expect requirements to interact with other work items. The mental modal study was inconclusive here. Do requirements exist in their own world with related/blocking/linked-type relationships to other work items or should they allow parents and children of different types? Questions to answer later :smile: \n\nHope that helps", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10593761, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-27 10:41:46 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-27 19:34:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253084796, "note": "@mmacfarlane How exciting! Are there extra features you think you'll need that are not part of what we have today?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-25 22:51:34 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-25 22:51:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253073205, "note": "@danmh @mushakov I've placed Hierarchies as a part of Requirements Complete Maturity. This may land us in the Q2 or Q3 timeline for potentially work on implementation. \n\n@amandarueda were you and team also thinking of tackling Hierarchies further in that time span?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4159863, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-25 22:29:37 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-25 22:51:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1258136422, "note": "@danmh Thank you for breaking down what we can carry over from tasks and OKRs versus what's unique to Requirements. \n\n> My first guess is that we will also want the following rules: A requirement can have many children; A requirement can only have another requirement as a child; A requirement can have a single parent; A requirement can only have another requirement as a parent; Requirement parent>child relationships can nest many layers deep\n\nThese are important to include. The concept of Upstream and Downstream requirements is important to maturity and this provides that structure.\n\nThere are some more complex hierarchal situations such as the following (just jotting down my thoughts):\n\nA car company needs a new solution for a door handle. The Need (Epic) is at the top of the hierarchy, a Requirement is a child nested under that Epic, and under that Requirement are Design/Engineering requirements as well as other Issues. A test case in this situation could be linked to both the child requirements but also validating the Need at the top level.\n\n@danmh for our next step let's finalize what we want to move forward with so we don't have to second guess :smile: Here's my thought:\n\nFor the Requirement Hierarchy Viable Solution we will have the following capabilities:\n\n* Add an existing requirement as a child\n* Add a new requirement as a child\n* Remove a requirement as a child\n* Add an existing requirement as a parent\n* Add a new requirement as a parent\n* Remove a requirement as a parent\n* Change a parent (move)\n* A requirement can have many children \n* A requirement can only have another requirement as a child\n* A requirement can have a single parent\n* A requirement can only have another requirement as a parent\n* Requirement parent>child relationships can nest many layers deep\n* Add a Test Case as a child of a requirement.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4159863, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-30 19:48:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-30 19:48:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 996021783, "note": "@gweaver We were not planning to display information about the relationships in Tasks in %\"15.2\" . Do you still think this information is critical if Tasks open in a modal as expected instead of a separate page? \n\ncc: @uhlexsis", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-17 19:04:26 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-17 19:04:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 996093843, "note": "@gweaver \n\n>I do not think the information is critical when viewing within the modal on the issue the Task is a child of, but becomes critical the moment the Task is viewed within any other context outside of the issue.\n\nYes agree. We had planned to complete up to MVC 2 next milestone https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7448. That's what our capacity showed we could complete. We don't have designs for showing a parent item yet. Is that something your team could help with? Once we have that, we could talk through options for implementing it. \n\ncc: @johnhope since this may affect plans for %\"15.2\" and @uhlexsis for visibility", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-17 20:38:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-27 12:27:26 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 999949785, "note": "I would think the breadcrumb would more or less just educate the user as to how they navigated/can navigate to this work item for MVC. This could be helpful even coexisting with a child/ancestor type widget.\n\n> This pattern only works when there's a single path to get to an item.\n\n> what happens when a task is related to more than 1 issue? `issue_links` have a `many-to-many` relationship.\n\nMaybe the word `related` was confusing here @gweaver @mushakov -  what I meant is it could just read literally the word `Task` like:\n\n<img src=\"/uploads/554ebbd17a543e073c2a8477dcbdb930/image.png\" width=\"300\">\n\nI wouldn't expect we need to call out related items in this way and that isn't something we currently do to my knowledge at least. Is that a need?\n\n> The breadcrumb on the task detail view also appears to be missing the work item ID\n\nI wasn't sure that we have this which is why I generalized to `Task` rather than `#`123. Do tasks have IDs & prefixes that are differentiated from other work items such as `issues` at the moment? If not, the challenge would be differentiating what the work item types are within the breadcrumbs. This could look something like (v rough):\n\n<img src=\"/uploads/6be60dfc7211f5d2be9138133b30b163/image.png\" width=\"300\">\n\nor more simply\n\n<img src=\"/uploads/09106b1777e9fa291109529f5d839d92/image.png\" width=\"300\">\n\n-----\n\n\n\nWhat could be helpful to solidly for future iterations:\n- If tasks can be orphaned. My assumption would be that tasks should be tied to an issue and never orphaned but I think this is still being explored. \n- Where the work items \"live\", what that view is and how it is accessed. For example what would happen if the user clicked \"work items\" in the current state, or where can the user view all tasks, incidents, etc (currently everything is a type of issue in the issue list).\n- How to best differentiate between types of work items (icon, prefix, whatever).\n\n\nIs there an issue for breadcrumbs or reference/paths for Tasks? Maybe in https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7103 ? I think this could be MVC for @nickleonard to account for in the new work item view that would address some of the feedback. Ancestors would be another aspect of this to work on separately.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3617348, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-21 21:45:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-21 21:47:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3617348, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2022-06-21 21:47:00 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1000737187, "note": "@uhlexsis I don't think the breadcrumbs can work for this solution. Consider this scenario:\n\n1. I create a Task from an issue. \n2. I relate that task to another 3 issues. \n\nWhat do we show here in the breadcrumbs when I navigate directly to the task? There would be no way to determine this because of the `many-to-many` nature of issue relationships. \n\n![image](/uploads/e1381619bc6f776a25d9766d714231b2/image.png)\n\n> Do tasks have IDs & prefixes that are differentiated from other work items such as `issues` at the moment?\n\nNo. The only difference is that we use an issue's global ID instead of the project ID in the URL. I think we need to start displaying `type` more prominently throughout the UI. An incident, test case, issue, task, and requirement are all just types of issues that we are moving towards calling `work items` where a work item has a `type`.\n\n> If tasks can be orphaned. My assumption would be that tasks should be tied to an issue and never orphaned but I think this is still being explored.\n\nTasks cannot be orphaned. They feel orphaned because a bug is preventing them from being visible within the issue list and when you navigate to the task detail view, you have no context on what issue the task is a part of. You technically can remove the relationship between the issue and the task, but the task will still be discoverable via the list view. They may also feel orphaned because they are currently being associated as just \"related\" instead of \"child of\" to the issue they were created from. Hopefully this part will change in 15.2 :fingers_crossed: \n\n> Where the work items \"live\", what that view is and how it is accessed. For example what would happen if the user clicked \"work items\" in the current state, or where can the user view all tasks, incidents, etc (currently everything is a type of issue in the issue list).\n\nRight now, the issue list. As soon as Tasks have assignee, weight, milestone, iteration, and label they will be accessible on Boards as well. \n\n> How to best differentiate between types of work items (icon, prefix, whatever).\n\nThings like the following would likely help:\n\n- Surface more meta-data (including `type`) when rendering references in markdown (ex: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/345170#note_735051311)\n- Include `type` name and `icon` more prominently at the top of each work item (or legacy issue view)", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "a40c58a81faf928cff2f733a6e06b5f54fb18164", "created_at": "2022-06-22 12:10:49 UTC", "updated_at": "2022-06-22 12:10:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1253091994, "note": ">were you and team also thinking of tackling Hierarchies further in that time span?\n\nYep! I have a couple UXR validations planned for Q1 around parent/child workflows and related (linked) workflows. Basically I want to understand what people are doing when accessing them and whether we could create a single relationship management widget for it all. I'd love to collaborate @mmacfarlane and don't mind either burning down a shared vision with both dev teams, or handing it over if it's something you're passionate about. WDYT?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-25 23:04:47 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-25 23:09:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 2890431, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-01-25 23:09:59 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1254299746, "note": "> Are there extra features you think you'll need that are not part of what we have today?\n\nI've been reading through https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/381478+ and the associated [MR](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-services/design.gitlab.com/-/merge_requests/3216) and Dan has covered several of the complicated scenarios we might encounter. An example includes displaying hierarchies in Lists and Grid views interchangeably. I was concerned a bit as well about how Requirements would fit into general work item hierarchies as it includes some more unique fields (created date and adjusted date for example) but Dan showed me some mocks on how we can address this.\n\nI'm certain there will be more things popping up.\n\n> I'd love to collaborate and don't mind either burning down a shared vision with both dev teams, or handing it over if it's something you're passionate about. WDYT?\n\n@amandarueda I would love to collaborate with you. If you have a couple of validations planned already would you mind if I sit in on those conversations, or provide some input on screeners/discussions?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4159863, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-26 18:48:25 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-26 18:59:32 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1256024438, "note": "> Do you think there is a chance it might move to be a requirement (sorry) for a viable maturity?\n\n@danmh my rationale for Viable is to include existing functionality found in the Legacy ID that is moved to the requirements as a Work Item type. Since Hierarchies currently aren't available in the Legacy requirement I excluded them, however, I see your rationale for inclusion considering hierarchies are a big hurdle to adoption.\n\nPerhaps we segment it how @mushakov has suggested. In Viable we have basic parent/child relationships for hierarchies, in Complete we have more robust hierarchies we other work items?\n\n> Do you think there's an opportunity to use the patterns we have and introduce a \"basic\" hierarchy experience?\n\nDan this question is best suited for you. Based on what I've seen in Figma it seems like we can reuse some patterns but I'll leave that conclusion in your court.\n\nActions for me from this:\n\n- Breakdown Hierarchy functionality into Viable and Complete maturity\n- Gather details from Dan on what is reusable for Hierarchies/what is the most efficient path forward alongside our FY24 Q1 OKR.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4159863, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-27 19:35:27 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-30 10:57:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1257272749, "note": "Sounds good, thank you for sharing that @mmacfarlane.\n\n> Do you think there's an opportunity to use the patterns we have and introduce a \"basic\" hierarchy experience?\n\n@mmacfarlane @mushakov My first guess is we will want the following flows:\n\n- Add an existing requirement as a child\n- Add a new requirement as a child\n- Remove a requirement as a child\n- Add an existing requirement as a parent\n- Add a new requirement as a parent\n- Remove a requirement as a parent\n- Change a parent (move)\n\nI think the flows and behaviours for these are already defined as part of existing work items work (tasks & OKRs).\n\nMy first guess is that we will also want the following rules:\n\n- A requirement can have many children\n- A requirement can only have another requirement as a child\n- A requirement can have a single parent\n- A requirement can only have another requirement as a parent\n- Requirement parent>child relationships can nest many layers deep\n\nI'm sure we'll uncover some more stuff when we look closer and start to prototype out these experiences.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10593761, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-30 11:03:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-30 21:04:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 10593761, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-01-30 11:05:38 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1258943914, "note": "@mmacfarlane good stuff!\n\n> A car company needs a new solution for a door handle. The Need (Epic) is at the top of the hierarchy, a Requirement is a child nested under that Epic, and under that Requirement are Design/Engineering requirements as well as other Issues. A test case in this situation could be linked to both the child requirements but also validating the Need at the top level.\n\nThis is a really useful example, thank you for sharing it.\n\nSomething that I thought was interesting about the Work Items Mental Model study is participants didn't consistently position requirements in their mental models. I have low confidence that requirements exist in the same structure as planning & development items \u2014\u00a0but I can't articulate it in text fully yet. Lets chat about it in our 1:1. \n\nTo expand on your example, perhaps the door handle only exists because of a high level requirements like `Exits and entrances must close securely`, `Exits and entrances shouldn't open accidentally`, and `People must be able to enter and exit the vehicle comfortably`.\n\n> For the Requirement Hierarchy Viable Solution we will have the following capabilities:\n>\n> * Add an existing requirement as a child\n> * Add a new requirement as a child\n> * Remove a requirement as a child\n> * Add an existing requirement as a parent\n> * Add a new requirement as a parent\n> * Remove a requirement as a parent\n> * Change a parent (move)\n\nAgreed \ud83d\ude4c for viable I think it would be ok for this to be scoped within a project if that makes it easier to deliver. Longer term I'd expect these to not want to be constrained by groups & projects.\n\n> For the Requirement Hierarchy Viable Solution we will have the following capabilities:\n> \n> * A requirement can have many children\n> * A requirement can only have another requirement as a child\n> * A requirement can have a single parent\n> * A requirement can only have another requirement as a parent\n> * Requirement parent>child relationships can nest many layers deep\n> * ~~Add a Test Case as a child of a requirement.~~\n\nI propose we don't make test cases a child of a requirement for the viable solution. Right now my guess is they have a strong relationship, but not a hierarchical one. Perhaps we could pick up what test cases are, and what they can do as part of getting quality management to viable?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 10593761, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-31 10:24:00 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-31 10:24:00 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1260117154, "note": "I really like the direction here @danmh and @mmacfarlane !", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-31 22:11:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-01-31 23:03:17 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1260155769, "note": "> Something that I thought was interesting about the Work Items Mental Model study is participants didn't consistently position requirements in their mental models. I have low confidence that requirements exist in the same structure as planning & development items \u2014\u00a0but I can't articulate it in text fully yet. Lets chat about it in our 1:1.\n\nHappy to chat about this. Added to our 1:1 doc.\n\n> To expand on your example, perhaps the door handle only exists because of a high level requirements like `Exits and entrances must close securely`, `Exits and entrances shouldn't open accidentally`, and `People must be able to enter and exit the vehicle comfortably`.\n\nA potential solution to this is defining the Requirement Priority level. I outlined this as a potential Complete feature. Priority levels would allow users to indicate if a requirement is tied to an initiative that is concerning safety, or whatever parameters they want. Dare I say we could also solve this with Labels ;)\n\n> I propose we don't make test cases a child of a requirement for the viable solution. Right now my guess is they have a strong relationship, but not a hierarchical one. Perhaps we could pick up what test cases are, and what they can do as part of getting quality management to viable?\n\nThat works for me. I appreciate your consideration as I tossed it in there.\n\n@danmh Let's move forward with the following then for Viable (I've adjusted this [Epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/4668) to reflect this):\n\n* A requirement can have many children\n* A requirement can only have another requirement as a child\n* A requirement can have a single parent\n* A requirement can only have another requirement as a parent\n* Requirement parent>child relationships can nest many layers deep\n\nDoes this give you the appropriate direction for Visualization? It sounds like there might not be too much new design here considering :fingers_crossed:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4159863, "discussion_id": "9c5f4dcb7c82ffa7ee03f14b2d853f65e2c314bb", "created_at": "2023-01-31 23:03:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-02-01 10:31:15 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 4159863, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-01-31 23:04:40 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1494371140, "note": "@mushakov @gweaver @akotte @darbyfrey @nickbrandt @esybrant  Hey team, can you please look at the [allowable relationships section](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6286#allowable-relationships) above and lmk if these assumptions match your thinking?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-07-31 20:28:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-01 09:16:38 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 2890431, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-07-31 20:31:53 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1500876910, "note": "@amandarueda IMHO any work item type should be linkable to any other work item type. That's just establishing a relationship. I also think it's fine if that means any work item type can block/blocks another work item type. It dramatically simplifies the logic. \n\nRegarding the defaults for the parent/child relationships:\n\n- Requirements should be recursive (ex: `requirement` > `requirement`)\n- Tasks should be not a child of Requirements because Tasks are things you do (short-lived planning object) and Requirements encapsulate long-lived system behavior. \n\nFor the parent/child relationships, I think we should de-emphasize hardcoding the \"correct\" logic for parent/child relationships and instead focus our efforts on https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7876+, which has a number of related issues scattered about:\n\n- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/383331+ (this is the table that determines which parent/child relationships are allowed and is what we want customers to eventually be able to configure)\n- https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7160+ (this feels functionally the same as https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7876+\n\nNothing has been finalized, but Alexis did some early design explorations:\n\n- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/346017#note_737144860\n- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/340844\n\nWe know that as we migrate epics to work items, we'll need to support the existing behavior of epics and issues today, which means recursive parent/child relationships (so `epic` > `epic` ...) should be an option within the configuration/relationship rules.\n\nAs a side note, fibery.io has a pretty slick way of managing relationships (in Fibery's world, a database is equivalent to a work item type):\n\n![Screenshot_2023-08-04_at_9.59.07_AM](/uploads/280567a06d4840a82b3b82738a438dc5/Screenshot_2023-08-04_at_9.59.07_AM.png)\n\nThey also have a global \"workspace map\" that lets you see all relationships across all objects, which is pretty helpful:\n\n![Screenshot_2023-08-04_at_10.02.52_AM](/uploads/2915d156b26b4c7185327cc2f12d608e/Screenshot_2023-08-04_at_10.02.52_AM.png)\n\nLastly, I think this table highlights that there are lots of valid arguments for multi-parenting. An issue could technically implement a requirement (child of requirement) while it is also a child of an epic (planning roadmap), but this is a separate discussion :smile:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-04 14:09:32 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 12:55:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499832988, "note": ">One question, do we plan to offer linking of **related** MRs? If so, do we need to add that to [this table](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6286#linked-related)? Or is this only focused solely on `work item` <> `work item` relationships?\n\n@nickbrandt this focus is on work items <> work item relationships. However with the introduction of `development` relationship type, we should explore adding linked MRs to the main linked component.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-03 22:11:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-03 22:11:40 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499856802, "note": "@gweaver when you have time (not urgent), can you check my logic on the rules for relationships with `Test Case`, `Ticket`, `Incident`, and `Requirement`?\n\n@kbychu would you mind specifically checking my logic on the rules for relationships with  `Ticket` and `Incident`?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-03 22:56:35 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-03 22:56:35 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499842565, "note": "Thanks a bunch @gweaver!\n\n>Maybe consider including `Test Case`, `Ticket`, `Incident`, and `Requirement` in the table as they all are or will be work items in the future.\n\nYes, definitely, I'll add them to the table.\n\n**Re: non-work item relationships**, IMO we should allow the relationships and include them in the main linked item widget if the user workflow supports that. What I mean is some of the related items mentioned on https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7105 may have a specific flow, separate from the natural flow of referencing linked records on a work item and perhaps they would need their own widget or callout. I would want to see research about how those records are referenced and what they are used for before making that call.\n\n**Re: `implemented by` type of relationships**:\n\n- **MRs**: For me, this is rather straight-forward when it comes to MRs and makes sense as a relationship type other than `related`, `blocking` and `blocked by`. There is great upside in creating this new relationship for reporting and delivery management. I wouldn't mind this being another section in the `linked items widget` but I believe UX is leaning towards visually separating this into its own widget on the detail page.\n- **OKRs**: I don't think OKRs is as straight forward. OKRs actually shouldn't be \"implemented\" or \"satisfied\" by epics and issues (work streams). Instead, they should be \"satisfied\" by the achieved goal (eg. reduce churn by x%). \n     - The work streams that affect the goal IMO are `related` or potentially `blocking` since the needle on the goal may not be moved as much as desired if the work stream is stalled. This distinction is often confused (even here at GitLab) with folks wanting the work stream to directly impact the Objective progress. \n     - Since I'm not the DRI for OKRs, /cc @akotte & @darbyfrey to weigh-in on whether OKRs should be linked (related, blocking, blocked by) to work items or `implemented by` work items.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-03 22:25:13 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-04 14:10:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512427279, "note": "@francoisrose\n\n> To _not break_ existing relationships to Epics when we [migrate Service Desk `Issues` to `Tickets`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/414353 \"Migrate existing service desk issues to tickets\")\n\nThis is a great point. Are there other work item types that you would envision Tickets being children of?'\n\n(Amanda is OOO and I am filling in for her, so please tag me in this discussion for now :smile_cat: )", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 14:14:41 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 14:15:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 5709669, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-14 14:15:36 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512481162, "note": "Adding some data:\n- Approx 1-2% of Service Desk Issues on GitLab.com have an Epic assigned, trending up\n  - Source: https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/1147376/Service-Desk---Widget-Interactions?widget=17075289&udv=0\n- Approx 7% of _all_ Issues have Epics in recent quarters\n  - Source: I temporarily removed `WHERE author_id = 1257257` from the same dashboard\n\nSo the usage of Epics in Service Desk is definitely not negligible IMO.\n\n---\n\n@mushakov Thank you for jumping in! Apart from Epics, I think Tickets could be children of other Tickets. I think all other parent types wouldn't apply.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13143755, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 14:41:07 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 14:41:07 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512526182, "note": "@francoisrose  @kbychu  Any thoughts on how many levels deep you'd want tickets to nest under other tickets? For other nesting work item types, the limit is 9.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 14:58:05 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 14:58:05 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512554003, "note": "@mushakov I imagine 2 levels of Tickets would be typical (when nesting is needed), maybe slightly more in some elaborate cases. 9 seems like plenty.\n\n<details><summary>Click for example Ticket/Task hierarchy</summary>\n\n> 1. (Ticket) Onboarding for Fran\u00e7ois Ros\u00e9, joining 2023-08-14 as CEO\n>    1. (Ticket) IT Onboarding\n>       1. (Task) Provide laptop\n>       1. (Task) Create email account\n>    1. (Ticket) HR onboarding\n>       1. (Task) Add to Workday\n>       1. (Task) Setup payroll\n>    1. (Ticket) Self-onboarding\n>       1. (Task) Complete these 500 checkboxes\n>       1. (Task) Meet the exec group\n\n</details>", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13143755, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 15:10:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 15:39:30 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1499946962, "note": "Sure @amandarueda ! Thanks for asking.\n\n1. I think both tickets and incidents can be a child of an epic. For example An incident is created and we discover a fundamental problem that requires a large effort. Everything is included in the epic, including the original incident. Or a large customer created several tickets on related issue they're experiencing, it makes sense to group them together under an epic, which may include development effort that is committed to the customer.\n2. I think both ticket and incident can potentially have recursive relationship with itself. For example, for a SaaS app, there might be a general incident, but sub-incident impacting specific important customers. For tickets, let's take the example of onboarding, there is a main ticket and sub tickets that are completed by different teams. It could potentially also be tasks under tickets as a good enough replacement...but I prefer not limiting the recursive relationship.\n3. I think it's possible for tickets to be blocked by tickets.\n4. Tickets/incidents might be related to test cases and potentially requirements.\n\ncc @francoisrose @syasonik in case they have some thoughts.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5213298, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-04 02:23:16 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-10 18:14:23 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512749963, "note": "@ck3g see Melissa's message above. It seems that having Tickets as children of Epics is fine. However, linking _legacy_ Epics to work items is not planned to be supported, because it would be costly to implement. That means https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/420862+ will be blocked by https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9290+.\n\nThat epic seems in progress now, but we're still blocked. Options are:\n1. Wait until Epics migrate to Work Items, stay blocked\n2. Same as 1. but also contribute to migrating Epic to Work Items, assuming that speeds up the work\n3. Add exception to the logic that prevents non-Issues to be assigned to Epics (see [comment](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/414353#note_1512065085)), assuming that is actually doable. It probably isn't, otherwise it wouldn't be so costly to support it?\n4. ...something else...?\n\n@kushalpandya any thoughts / ideas? We basically have parallel Work Item migrations taking place here, maybe there are some creative workarounds I'm missing.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13143755, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 17:42:43 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 17:42:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1521370545, "note": "> As I recently notice, we cannot covert issues assigned to an epic due to failing validation. We can consider \"force\" convert by bypassing validation, but it seems to me not he best approach.\n\n@ck3g Validation happens on both creation and updating of work item type? We primarily want to prevent work items from being added as children from epics. Maybe we can switch the validation to check if an `issue` is a work item and prevent it from being added as a child if it is.\n\n> As I understand, the mentioned toggle should work per user and not per work item. Thus we're not going to convert issue type back and forth. The idea is to be able to toggle between old and new interface while we're working in adding features into the new one.\n\nThat might still work. It can be treated as a feature that is not yet added to the new work item view, and users that need that information would have to use the old view.\n\n> Would you be able to associate a ticket to an epic from this view?\n\n@mushakov It depends on how we handle the validation mentioned above. If needed we can probably allow it.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-21 14:58:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-21 16:07:34 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512905112, "note": "@francoisrose @ck3g \n\n> Tickets as children of Epics is fine.\n\nTo clarify this further, we currently don't support having legacy epics as parents of work items either and were not planning to implement it. We were essentially trying to avoid having epic to work item relationships since we are close to migrating epics to work items (target is early next year). \n\ncc: @kushalpandya", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 20:35:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-14 20:35:11 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1513329762, "note": "@mushakov thank you, yes, that's what I meant as well!\n\nWhen I say \"Tickets as children of Epics is fine\", I mean that it's fine to have that parent:child relationship (semantically speaking). @amandarueda had raised that `Epic:Ticket` was not desired, but from our conversation here I gather that it will be acceptable. Please correct me if that's wrong!\n\n> we are close to migrating epics to work items (target is early next year)\n\nThis is the part that worries me, since that would mean we're blocked on introducing Service Desk Tickets until that work is complete. Hence looking for solutions to work around that dependency. I certainly don't want to go down a path that requires months of work to enable `legacy Epics:Work items` either.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13143755, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-15 06:59:24 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-15 06:59:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1513419068, "note": "@francoisrose Technically, legacy issues and tickets can coexist simultaneously, as we're currently planning. However, the new ticket-only features will not be accessible for legacy issues. For instance, if we were to add a ticket-specific widget to a ticket page, that might not be the optimal solution.\n\nOn the other hand, we are planning the introduction of a view toggle that allows users to switch between the legacy issue view and the ticket view. As long as this feature is available, having two different views could be acceptable for a certain period.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3714742, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-15 08:12:01 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-15 08:12:01 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1514127480, "note": "FYI I updated the table to show that a ticket can be a child of an epic of another ticket :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-15 15:30:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-16 16:09:08 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1517541160, "note": "@donaldcook @johnhope including you here too to see if you have any creative solutions/ideas :sweat_smile: . Essentially, the Respond team is working on making service desk created issues be a new work item type named Tickets. Tickets need to be children of Epics. We do not have the ability to set work items as children of epics and do not plan to implement it. I'm wondering if because the data for Tickets would be in the Issues table, there is a way to achieve this without building capabilities to relate Tickets to Legacy Epics.\n\ncc: @kushalpandya", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-17 16:59:31 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-17 16:59:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1517596690, "note": "@ck3g Do we have the migration plan from service desk issues to work item tickets documented? From what I'm gathering, we just don't want to lose the current epic -> ticket relationship in the migration. If we just update the work item type of the issue in the issues table, the relationship to the epic should persist (we may have to add another exception to what you mentioned in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/414353#note_1512065085, cc @egrieff).\n\n> we are planning the introduction of a view toggle that allows users to switch between the legacy issue view and the ticket view\n\nI agree with @kushalpandya that creating a separate widget/feature to associate with legacy epics is an inefficient use of time. If we're adding a toggle, I would recommend we just don't show the related epic in the work item view until epics are also work items (possibly with a note explaining that it is coming to work items in the future).\n\n/cc @mushakov @francoisrose", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-17 17:43:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-18 11:37:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1517667993, "note": "> If we're adding a toggle, I would recommend we just don't show the related epic in the work item view until epics are also work items (possibly with a note explaining that it is coming to work items in the future)\n\n@donaldcook I like where you are going. Would you be able to associate a ticket to an epic from this view?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-17 18:53:36 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-17 18:53:36 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1520460109, "note": "\n@donaldcook cook We were planning to create a background migration to go through issues created by support bot (that's the anchor for Service Desk issues) and convert them into work items.\n\n> If we just update the work item type of the issue in the issues table, the relationship to the epic should persist\n\nAs I recently notice, we cannot covert issues assigned to an epic due to failing validation. We can consider \"force\" convert by bypassing validation, but it seems to me not he best approach.\n\n> If we're adding a toggle, I would recommend we just don't show the related epic in the work item view until epics are also work items (possibly with a note explaining that it is coming to work items in the future).\n\nAs I understand, the mentioned toggle should work per user and not per work item. Thus we're not going to convert issue type back and forth. The idea is to be able to toggle between old and new interface while we're working in adding features into the new one. \n\nThe work item view doesn't show any epic information at the moment.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3714742, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-21 06:42:42 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-21 06:42:42 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1522239616, "note": "@donaldcook \n\n> Validation happens on both creation and updating of work item type?\n\nYes, that's how it works at the moment", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3714742, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-22 06:25:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-22 06:25:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1523118385, "note": "@donaldcook @ck3g `work_item_type` change is not allowed for legacy issues, they can only be changed to be an incident or a test case, the legacy types. These used to be called `issue_type` until recently which made it easier to understand IMO. This MR has more context: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/107010.\n\n> If we just update the work item type of the issue in the issues table, the relationship to the epic should persist \n\nI agree, if using the work item view for the legacy issue is not a problem, the type can be converted using the `WorkItem` model where the validation is not present. This can be done using a GQL mutation or a quick action:\n\n```graphql\nmutation convertWorkItem {\n  workItemConvert(input:{id: \"gid://gitlab/WorkItem/<legacy_issue_ID>\", workItemTypeId:\"gid://gitlab/WorkItems::Type/<type_id>\"}) {\n    errors\n    workItem {\n      workItemType {\n        name\n      }\n    }\n  }\n}\n```\n\n```\n/type ticket\n```\n\nAlthough this is not working at the moment because we are missing the ability name for tickets, we need to add `rule { can?(:create_issue) }.enable :create_ticket` to [`ProjectPolicy`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/app/policies/project_policy.rb) to fix it.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-22 15:15:53 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-22 15:17:43 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3860200, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": "2023-08-22 15:17:42 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512419543, "note": "Merging [this thread](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/11139#note_1507908378) here, where @amandarueda said:\n\n> Once Epics are migrated to work items, you will be able to **[link](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/387899)** (related, blocked by, blocking) work items to epics, however we will **not** allow a `Epic (parent):Ticket (child)` relationship. Please lmk if there is a strong use case you'd like to share for allowing this relationship.\n\n@amandarueda these are the main reasons to support `Epic (parent):Ticket (child)`:\n- To group Tickets that come from the same large customer on a related issue they're experiencing. The epic may include development effort that is committed to the customer. _(Paraphrasing @kbychu's [comment](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/6286#note_1499946962) above)_\n- To _not break_ existing relationships to Epics when we [migrate Service Desk `Issues` to `Tickets`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/414353).\n  - If we do break this, would we need to wait until 17.0 before migrating to Tickets?\n\nCan you share the arguments to disallow `Epic (parent):Ticket (child)`?\n\nNote: we are almost ready to migrate Issues>Tickets, so this decision will block our work soon.\n\ncc @kbychu", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 13143755, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 14:10:11 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-22 18:49:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1512632423, "note": "Thanks for the info @francoisrose . I'll update the table above. One thing to consider is that y'all will likely need to wait for epics to be migrated to work items. We don't currently have plans to implement relationships of work items to legacy epics. Our research showed that it's considerable effort to do so https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7459#note_1489295354 . \n\ncc: @kbychu for visibility\n\ncc: @kushalpandya to verify the estimate is appropriate and answer technical questions", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-14 15:51:14 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-22 18:49:33 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1516680460, "note": "@francoisrose Sorry for late response here!\n\n> It seems that having Tickets as children of Epics is fine. However, linking *legacy* Epics to work items is not planned to be supported, because it would be costly to implement.\n\n> Add exception to the logic that prevents non-Issues to be assigned to Epics (see [comment](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/414353#note_1512065085)), assuming that is actually doable. It probably isn't, otherwise it wouldn't be so costly to support it?\n\nLet's call tickets as `issues` :sweat_smile:, yes, linking legacy epics to work items is not only very challenging but also a wasted effort as that would eventually be possible once both issues and epics are migrated. Reason being issues and epics both have different db tables. :slight_smile:\n\nAlso, we have https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10851+ coming up soon which will allow relating legacy issues to work items so even if legacy issues are pending migration, it wouldn't prevent _migrated_ epics to relate to _legacy_ issues.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 411701, "discussion_id": "370b15c94ea6a6f246b73af4efbd80d503539c34", "created_at": "2023-08-17 09:00:30 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-08-24 09:39:41 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1555545820, "note": "@kushalpandya I think the tables above are now complete if you'd like to add them to documentation. Lmk once complete and I will deprecate the use of the table in the epic and redirect folks to the documentation link. :thankyou:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 2890431, "discussion_id": "f8ab03adc0d66acb1ad114c3b2450fbcc52a76c6", "created_at": "2023-09-12 17:02:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-13 19:18:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 302007, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1434241869, "note": "@mushakov agreed.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "5eda4ecd2496f733079025a5cd7461a1c8cb9850", "created_at": "2023-06-16 14:56:04 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-16 15:46:49 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487907450, "note": "@donaldcook Yes, each iteration is a point we can release to customers. 1A can be released without 1B. \n\nI grouped them together because I see them as the two parts to the whole vision of `Building a foundation for work item detail views`. I see 1A and 1B as strongly related, but I don't think Iteration 1, 2, and 3 are as strongly related, if that makes sense.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-25 20:43:38 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-26 20:00:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1544538650, "note": "Update on the work item utility actions: Utility actions will be [staying within the page header and not moving to the breadcrumbs](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/417206#note_1506867173 \"Re-structure work items header area layout to accommodate new ancestry widget\"), so I have removed that from the epic description. Utility actions will be part of the [sticky header for work items](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/419953) so that they can be accessed anywhere on the page.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "7e53e624db5ba371f4a9065e52ee401e5d7ec6fb", "created_at": "2023-09-05 21:09:10 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-09-05 21:09:10 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1493245122, "note": "[some slack discussion](https://gitlab.slack.com/archives/CLW71KM96/p1690404850184969) on actions in breadcrumbs. And https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/419962+ \n\n/cc @annabeldunstone", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 832471, "discussion_id": "9e1673ddf12c87cf7ea59afa5831910e9ae90b5c", "created_at": "2023-07-31 06:51:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-31 06:51:39 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1433195793, "note": "@amandarueda @gweaver I think that most of these items will need to be addressed before the rollout Epics or Issues. Can you please take a quick look and confirm? If so, we can set it to block both of your epics.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "5eda4ecd2496f733079025a5cd7461a1c8cb9850", "created_at": "2023-06-15 22:32:33 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-06-30 20:05:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1482585360, "note": "@jackib @gweaver @mushakov Thanks for the feedback! Will try to address it point by point below.\n\n### General\n\n> * For Iteration 1B, do you mean all four areas should be applied to Tasks, Objectives and Key Results at the same time? Confirming this, as I think this epic is a blocker for migration of Epics and Issues.\n\n@jackib Are you asking about what I mean by `When updating the work item detail view, there are a number of changes that need to happen all at once to provide value and a consistent, usable experience for our users.`? I just mean that 1B.1 (Two-column layout), for example, shouldn't be released without the other items in 1B.\n\nWhen it comes to work item types, I believe that any change we make to the work item will automatically apply to all work item types (currently tasks, objectives, and key results).\n\n> * What do you think of adding an updated date column to your tables, that way we can keep this from getting stale?\n \n:thumbsup: Will do, but I think I'll add it to the top of the table instead of a separate column (which will make all the columns narrower).\n\n> * Since the detail page design directions are so different from the current Task view, can we add current screenshots to issues, in addition to the proposal? For the current, just a screenshot of the affected parted of the Tasks view would be fine.\n\n@jackib Do you mean add screenshots of the current state to this Epic? Or screenshots of the current state to each issue as they move to implementation?\n\n### Parent / ancestry widget\n\n> * For Iteration 1B, I wonder if the Parent/Ancestry and Create improvements have to be part of it, or can be a 1C, or as part of Iteration 2?\n\n> * For 1B.3 (`Parent / ancestry information`) - Do we need to make this a dependency of 1B given the parent information is already present in the secondary breadcrumbs above the title? Rationale: It already exists in the experience today for Tasks, Objectives, and Key Results. The impact/change is limited to only these three work item types. Moving it to a widget in the sidebar seems like more of a consistency thing rather than a usability problem we're solving.\n\nMy thinking here is that moving the parent / ancestry information into the sidebar is fairly big change from how the work item currently is and that it makes sense to introduce that change when we introduce the sidebar. But that's a pretty loosely held opinion, I'm happy to split that out into a separate iteration if that's what others feel strongly about. @nickbrandt would appreciate your input since you're working on that widget!\n\n### Create / edit experience\n\n> * For 1B.4 (`Create / edit experience`) - The create experience and related workflows feels like a separate problem and set of MVCs from the two-column layout. Maybe the creation should block releasing Objectives and Key Results instead of defaulting the two-column layout to \"on\"? Editing the detail view, specifically the Title and Description, via the new `Edit` button proposed for the breadcrumb row, feels more like a dependency for enabling the two-column layout given the outcome I think UX is looking for is fully removing the \"click to edit\" pattern from the work item detail.\n\n> I think of `Create / edit experience` as a separate iteration after we have arrived at the desired modal layout. Can you expand on why you recommend coupling this with the rest of the changes?\n\nI actually don't have a strong reason for create/edit being part of iteration 1B, I put it there because I thought it was one of the areas we'd discussed in our sync meeting (but I may have gotten my wires crossed there). I'm happy to move it to a later iteration independent of the two-column layout. \n\n@gweaver it sounds like you're suggesting the edit/create is a dependency for the two-column layout, am I reading that right?\n\n### Additional widgets (dev widget, child items, linked items, etc)\n\n> These aren't present on work items now, so we can treat each of them as separate dependencies for the top-level \"migrate \\[insert object\\] to work items\" epics. WDYT?\n\nMakes sense to me! :thumbsup:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-21 21:53:09 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 21:53:09 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1487571719, "note": "@esybrant Are we saying that each iteration is a point that we can release to customers? If that is the case, do we need 1a and 1b or can they just be 1 and 2?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3507264, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-25 16:48:21 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 16:48:21 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1490780614, "note": "@esybrant Closing the loop here -- I created 4 subepics for this epic that we can use to contain the issues for each of the phases you outlined. We can work together as a team to further refine and estimate the work involved for each MVC where the goal is we can release each of phase when it's completed.\n\ncc @donaldcook", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-27 16:01:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-27 17:21:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1480097393, "note": "@jackib @nickbrandt @gweaver @donaldcook I just took a stab at documenting the dependencies and rollout plan for the updates to the work items detail view (see the epic description). Would love your feedback!\n\n**Here are some prompts to solicit feedback (but please feel free to give feedback in any area!):**\n\n* Is there anything I'm missing as part of the iteration plans?\n* Are the dependencies clear?\n* I originally had adding additional widgets (dev widget, child items, linked items, etc) as part of Iteration 2, but it seems like many of those things are already captured in the epics for migrating epics/issues to work items. How do we want to structure that?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-20 17:32:18 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-20 22:45:02 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1480398899, "note": "@esybrant This is so organized, thank you!\n\n**Feedback on the plan**\n\n> * Is there anything I'm missing as part of the iteration plans?\n\nLooking at [this inventory](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9972 \"\ud83c\udf1f Align Work Item design patterns with the Pajamas Design System\"), everything seems to be addressed from the UX concerns. \n\n> * Are the dependencies clear?\n\n* For Iteration 1B, do you mean all four areas should be applied to Tasks, Objectives and Key Results at the same time? Confirming this, as I think this epic is a blocker for migration of Epics and Issues.\n* For Iteration 1B, I wonder if the Parent/Ancestry and Create improvements have to be part of it, or can be a 1C, or as part of Iteration 2?\n\n**Few suggestions on documentation**\n\n* What do you think of adding an updated date column to your tables, that way we can keep this from getting stale?\n* Since the detail page design directions are so different from the current Task view, can we add current screenshots to issues, in addition to the proposal? For the current, just a screenshot of the affected parted of the Tasks view would be fine.\n\ncc @amandarueda @mushakov", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4089849, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-20 22:45:02 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 17:12:31 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1482003013, "note": "Thanks for putting this together, @esybrant ! I think of `Create / edit experience` as a separate iteration after we have arrived at the desired modal layout. Can you expand on why you recommend coupling this with the rest of the changes?\n\ncc: @amandarueda @gweaver @jackib", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-21 17:19:13 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 17:19:13 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1482056872, "note": "@esybrant I agree all of these things should be done prior to migrating epics and issues to the work item architecture. Here's my initial feedback and questions:\n\n- For 1B.3 (`Parent / ancestry information`) - Do we need to make this a dependency of 1B given the parent information is already present in the secondary breadcrumbs above the title? Rationale: It already exists in the experience today for Tasks, Objectives, and Key Results. The impact/change is limited to only these three work item types. Moving it to a widget in the sidebar seems like more of a consistency thing rather than a usability problem we're solving. \n- For 1B.4 (`Create / edit experience`) - The create experience and related workflows feels like a separate problem and set of MVCs from the two-column layout. Maybe the creation should block releasing Objectives and Key Results instead of defaulting the two-column layout to \"on\"? Editing the detail view, specifically the Title and Description, via the new `Edit` button proposed for the breadcrumb row, feels more like a dependency for enabling the two-column layout given the outcome I think UX is looking for is fully removing the \"click to edit\" pattern from the work item detail. \n\n> I originally had adding additional widgets (dev widget, child items, linked items, etc) as part of Iteration 2, but it seems like many of those things are already captured in the epics for migrating epics/issues to work items. How do we want to structure that?\n\nThese aren't present on work items now, so we can treat each of them as separate dependencies for the top-level \"migrate [insert object] to work items\" epics. WDYT?", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-21 17:47:48 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-21 17:47:48 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1485391729, "note": "> it sounds like you're suggesting the edit/create is a dependency for the two-column layout, am I reading that right?\n\n@esybrant I'm suggesting the edit and create workflows be split into different iterations. The update pattern needs to be consistent and clear (ex: we are proposing introducing a new `Edit` button in the breadcrumbs area), which is scoped to the detail view. The create workflows do include the detail view, but also encompass areas of the product outside of the detail view, so I think that workflow can be improved after we release improvements to the detail view.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4303289, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-24 13:28:39 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 21:27:24 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1486103338, "note": "I agree with @gweaver suggestion above.", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-24 21:29:59 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 21:29:59 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1486108724, "note": "Also, thanks for the explanation of the why behind your recommendations, @esybrant . It's super clear to follow why you went in a specific direction :star2: .", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 5709669, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-24 21:36:44 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-24 21:36:44 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1486169421, "note": "@jackib @gweaver @mushakov Thanks for the great feedback! I updated the description based on your suggestions if you want to give it another look.\n\nNotable changes:\n\n* Moved the create flow to its own iteration (but left the edit experience in iteration 1B).\n* Moved the parent/ancestry widget out to a new section `Non-dependent improvements`\n* Moved sticky header from 1A to 1B _(In my mind, this one is more connected to the two-column layout than the header changes.)_", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 4377833, "discussion_id": "6f79d0d9dff3add7b3d8dd2275cc1eaf0c130ed4", "created_at": "2023-07-24 22:33:40 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-07-25 22:03:46 UTC", "noteable_id": 854759, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": null, "type": "DiscussionNote", "position": null, "confidential": false, "last_edited_at": null, "namespace_id": null}
+{"id": 1403219449, "note": "@amandarueda FYI I've created this epic to group issues related to WI bugs involving permissions for guest users. \n\nThe last 3 are related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/407174, so I'm holding assigning a weight until we agree on a resolution. Let me know if anything else is missing :pray:\n\n---\nETA: After https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/407174 was resolved I updated labels and proposals.\n\n@ramistry Do you mind assigning a weight for https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/412830 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/412829, please?\n\nAlso, I'm not sure if https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/412831 requires a new mutation so I left the ~backend label for now, but maybe you can check if the proposal is applicable. :pray:", "noteable_type": "Epic", "author_id": 3860200, "discussion_id": "37b8672383a3328f9a96a077149e8b793af45464", "created_at": "2023-05-24 10:11:29 UTC", "updated_at": "2023-05-24 16:29:56 UTC", "noteable_id": 835460, "system": false, "internal": false, "project_id": null, "updated_by_id": 3860200, "type": null, "position": null, "confidential": null, "last_edited_at": "2023-05-24 15:58:36 UTC", "namespace_id": null}
\ No newline at end of file