I have a recent sample in mind, making some ‘non-academic’ contributions and bug fixes on gramps-project in the past.
Last months, after intentionally creating errors in thread management to see how Gramps reacts to, I came to the conclusion that with this exponential growth and the quality of the contributions for these recents PR(s), I will no more able to keep my foolish (unsafe) way for testing gramps reactions, as I will no more able to test with the most recents versions (devel state). AI may help, but my oldschool ‘step-by-step’ way for testing often disturbes the coding model. So, for more flexibility, my prompts only asked AI on an help for coding errors (like I did before), then making some slow clean-up steps. While the error step isn’t fixed, the AI will no more try to go further (or too far), and I feel like I still keep the control… That’s my current guard and workflow, but as I learned coding by looking at gramps code, this is just an other way for contributing with my limits and ressources. Standard coding and devel environment might be a best and safe way.
eg., there is (or not) a possible issue with an empty date set and the span quality on Date object. I looked at unit tests but was not able to generate a quick and proper (quality) PR.
Without docker or any virtualization stuff, I had to test it on gramps-6.1 beta release, apply some patches from PR, look at commit logs and get back my empty span date issue (was an external script) without current workaround, to see if this could be fixed on gramps 6.1 with some PR (bugs fix). Sure, could also try to patch my current active branch too (backport), but this does not make sense for a devel contibution or any bug report.
So, git and automatic control tools (or unit tests) were for me the start of the pre-AI period time! Sure, 100% human tests means to understand the complete code (full), which is currently no more possible on a so big ecosystem. Last contributions and recent(s) PR(s) look so complex. I just wonder how AI reads (or stores in memory) all workarounds still remain(ing) on some parts of gramps’ code? I guess that comments on code should be checked or reviewed for AI (take care for the quality of them, like a prompt)?
ps: sorry, I wasn’t able to properly use the spell (grammar) checker with my locale and the AI helper provided with gramps.discourse
Update: maybe I was a little bit lazy with the date span support on my custom Gramps XML template on the external script… Anyway, the possible import problem with empty date values seems to be covered on: