CCTV, an open-source JavaScript project designed for real-time location tracking via Telegram, faces potential stagnation as development activity has ceased for over 95 days amidst rising concerns over Telegram's account bans related to its "Find People Nearby" feature.
Recent issues and pull requests (PRs) highlight recurring user challenges, particularly around account deactivations (#52) and configuration errors (#45, #44). These issues suggest difficulties in aligning with Telegram's policies and user setup complexities. The last significant development activities involved code refactoring and linter integration, with Ivan Glinkin and Alexander Popov leading these efforts. However, no new commits have been made since then, indicating a possible pause in active development.
Summary
Quantified Reports
Detailed Reportsruff) and optimized API calls; last active 95 days ago.json_into_html.py; last active 107 days ago.start.py; last active 100 days ago.banners.py; last active 108 days ago.| Timespan | Opened | Closed | Comments | Labeled | Milestones |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Days | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 Days | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 90 Days | 7 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 1 |
| All Time | 28 | 19 | - | - | - |
Like all software activity quantification, these numbers are imperfect but sometimes useful. Comments, Labels, and Milestones refer to those issues opened in the timespan in question.
The GitHub repository for the CCTV project has seen a moderate level of activity, with 9 open issues currently logged. Notably, there are recurring themes related to user errors and technical challenges, particularly concerning account bans and configuration issues. A significant number of issues focus on the implications of using the Telegram API, especially regarding user bans when employing the "Find People Nearby" feature.
Several issues exhibit anomalies, such as repeated reports of account deactivations (#22, #52) and errors linked to API usage (#2, #12). These indicate a potential pattern where users are either misconfiguring their setups or encountering limitations imposed by Telegram's policies. The presence of multiple language discussions also highlights the project's international reach but may complicate communication and support.
Issue #51: OperationalError: database is locked
Issue #49: Cams
Issue #48: Баг? (Bug?)
Issue #46: 生成的html文件中缺少一行代码‘ ’ (Missing line in generated HTML file)
Issue #40: git clone https://github.com/IvanGlinkin/CCTV.git cd CCTV pip install -r requirements.txt
Issue #52: The user has been deleted/deactivated
Issue #45: where to create config.yaml?
Issue #44: where to create config.yaml?
Issue #42: Html-файл (HTML file)
Issue #37: Версия Python? (Python version?)
The issues reflect a mix of technical bugs, user inquiries about setup, and concerns regarding compliance with Telegram's policies. The presence of both open and closed issues indicates ongoing engagement from users seeking support while also highlighting areas where the project may need further refinement or clearer documentation to mitigate user errors.
The dataset includes a total of 21 pull requests (PRs) for the CCTV project, with one currently open and 20 closed. The PRs encompass a variety of changes, including code refactoring, feature additions, bug fixes, and improvements to code quality.
GUI_template.py indicates ongoing evaluation of file relevance.PR #47: Create H
PR #43: Rename README.md to README.mdSintayew4/CCTV
PR #41: Added ruff linter
PR #39: Add the ability to skip avatars downloading
PR #36: Code refactoring
PR #34: Update start.py
PR #29: Improved Frontend
PR #23: Add FloodWaitError import
PR #21: Added target to a tags
PR #16: Added unified config
Other PRs (#14, #13, #11, #10, #9, #8, #7, #3, #1): These PRs primarily focused on reducing API calls, fixing errors, minor code cleanup, and adding necessary files like .gitignore.
The pull requests submitted for the CCTV project reveal several key themes and trends that are significant for understanding the project's development trajectory and community engagement.
A notable emphasis on code quality is evident from several PRs introducing linters and refactoring efforts. For instance, PR #41 added the ruff linter to enforce coding standards. This is complemented by PR #36’s extensive refactoring aimed at improving readability and performance. Such initiatives are vital for long-term maintainability as they help prevent technical debt from accumulating over time. The community appears responsive to these needs, as indicated by discussions surrounding coding standards and practices among contributors.
Several PRs introduced new features that enhance user experience and functionality. For example, PR #39 allowed users to skip avatar downloads—a practical addition that reflects user-centric design principles. Similarly, PR #29 addressed frontend issues related to memory management and event handling. These enhancements indicate an active engagement with user feedback and a commitment to improving the overall usability of the application.
The project has seen critical bug fixes through various PRs. For instance, PR #23 resolved an error caused by a missing import that could have led to runtime failures. Such proactive measures are essential in maintaining application stability and reliability. Moreover, the introduction of better exception handling practices in other PRs demonstrates a growing awareness of the importance of robust error management within the development team.
The presence of multiple contributors submitting PRs suggests an engaged community willing to collaborate on improvements. However, some closed PRs like PR #47 and PR #43 highlight potential challenges in aligning contributions with project goals—these submissions were not merged due to their lack of relevance or utility. This indicates that while community engagement is strong, there may be occasional misalignments between contributor intentions and project needs.
There are instances where proposed changes were not merged due to questionable relevance or redundancy—such as renaming files without substantial changes or creating empty files with minimal content. This raises questions about contribution guidelines and whether clearer communication is needed regarding what constitutes valuable contributions.
In conclusion, the pull requests reflect a dynamic development environment characterized by ongoing improvements in code quality, feature enhancements tailored towards user needs, proactive error handling measures, and active community participation. However, there remains room for refining contribution processes to ensure alignment with project objectives while fostering continued collaboration among developers.
Ivan Glinkin (IvanGlinkin)
json_into_html.py and start.py. His last commit was 95 days ago, focusing on code refactoring.Alexander Popov (paracosm17)
FloodWaitError import. He co-authored the last major commit 95 days ago.Anton (ask0n)
ruff) and performing minor code cleanups. He has also been involved in reducing API calls and fixing typos. His contributions include several commits related to linter integration and API call optimizations.Khoirul Aksara (khoirulaksara)
json_into_html.py and start.py. His last significant contribution was 107 days ago.Prudhvi Chakravarthy (PrudhviChakravarthy)
start.py by changing conditional logic. His last commit was 100 days ago.Jibril Bulama (jaebee2)
Edmond Major III (spmedia)
banners.py, with his last activity noted 108 days ago.