Add extra developer duplicate check to look for identical contact methods #447
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a new duplicate developer check, to look for any intersecting contact methods between two developer entries. This appears to be both significantly more accurate and faster than the edit distance name check method (which is still present in this PR).
I've also, in a separate commit for ease of review, removed some unambiguous duplicate cases that were found via a quick glance over the script output., and regenerated the HTML. One of the unambiguous duplicate cases was mentioned in this issue, #434
It appears that there was one oddity in the new static website output that I'm not sure whether is acceptable or not, being that
ladderandLadderappear to have swapped alphabetical order. From a quick Google it seems that the output in my PR is considered more "correct," but I'm happy to correct it if necessary. It might just be a matter of Python version, as I ran this with the latest Python 3 release (3.13.1 at the time of writing)