Archives
Contributors
Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions
Thinking a bit out of the box here, but what might perhaps work is if:
- We set up a separate organisation OCA-ai
- This mirrors the full OCA organization as a fork, similar to odoo vs OCB
- If something looks like AI we close and tell contributors to reopen it there (could possibly be automated with the OCA bot if we can recognize something as AI)
- In that organisation we require 100% test coverage and passing tests, as well as the standard migration process having been followed (could be automated)
- If the bot decides there that it is OK, it automatically reopens the PR to the real OCA organization (where we thus only get "prefiltered" PRs)
In the absence of such automation I +1 Stefan's suggestion of adding a guideline
- We set up a separate organisation OCA-ai
- This mirrors the full OCA organization as a fork, similar to odoo vs OCB
- If something looks like AI we close and tell contributors to reopen it there (could possibly be automated with the OCA bot if we can recognize something as AI)
- In that organisation we require 100% test coverage and passing tests, as well as the standard migration process having been followed (could be automated)
- If the bot decides there that it is OK, it automatically reopens the PR to the real OCA organization (where we thus only get "prefiltered" PRs)
In the absence of such automation I +1 Stefan's suggestion of adding a guideline
by Tom Blauwendraat - 11:11 - 18 Sep 2025
Reference
-
Guidelines for LLM generated contributions
Dear all, at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator). Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its extend. For an example, see https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files. I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has happened to me on one or two occassions). Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter? Cheers, Stefan -- Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606 web:https://opener.amsterdam
by Stefan Rijnhart - 09:40 - 18 Sep 2025