lookit / lookit/lookit-api

SCOPING: Diff tool for study submission review

Open
#139 3 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Researcher Scoping Small Staff study review
Dominant language
Python
Stars
12
Forks
21
Avg merge
5d 19h
Merged PRs (30d)
5

Description

Pain point: Before studies are actually deployed on Lookit, they have to be approved by an admin, which reserves an opportunity for us to check for compliance with terms of use, help researchers ensure instructions are clear, etc. Studies have to be re-approved after changes are made. But there's currently no way for an admin to tell what has changed, which would allow vastly expedited review in the case where the researcher fixed a typo or changed the age range, allowing us to focus energy on cases where new code has been introduced, etc.

Acceptance criteria: When reviewing a submitted study, a Lookit admin can see what has changed since the last approved version (if there is one) and see a history of actions taken on the study (e.g. edits/state changes). Either when saving changes to a study or when submitting, a researcher can provide a note about the purpose of the changes (like a commit message).

Implementation notes/Suggestions: Changes may have been made to any of the fields on the study model - e.g. purpose, description, title, eligibility criteria, JSON doc, commit SHAs. For all except the JSON doc simply displaying the previous and current versions of any changed fields would be fine. For the JSON doc some sort of actual diff output would be helpful if possible since often changes will be just to a few lines.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by locating the study model and the submission, approval, saving, and state-change entry points. Review how prior approved versions, changed fields, JSON documents, commit SHAs, and researcher notes are represented. Done means an admin can compare the current submission with the last approved version, inspect study action history, and see the purpose of researcher changes.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
python
Domain
api, backend
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.