1. Mailing Lists
  2. Contributors
  3. Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Browse archives

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Avatar

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

by
Camptocamp France SAS, Matthieu Méquignon
- 19/09/2025 10:18:05

Hi!

While I understand the concern and the need for compromise here (because I know this is going to happen, no matter what is decided), I'm gonna be «this guy»: I am totally against LLM generated contributions.

Regarding migrations, we already have great tools to facilitate developments, such as oca-port doing migrations in seconds.
I would be ok with community scripts doing the boring/automated changes, such as `tree` -> `list`, `_` -> `self.env._` etc…
From there, the remaining work is the hardest, and LLM can (at best) only assist.

Now regarding contribution, in my opinion LLM lacks what I believe is the bare minimum to be able to contribute.
For any change at all, I would expect thorough testing, screenshots or whatever.
It requires to install, configure, set up an odoo instance, which requires basic knowledge of functional processes...
And if this doesn't work, we need to adapt the code until it works, and ensure we do not introduce a regression somewhere else.
Again, this is the long and complicated part to any contribution, and LLM only can assist.

I'm in favor of this flag, so I can filter out the ones to not review.

Regards,

(sorry for the bluntiness, but I really believe AI has its uses, and that this shouldn't be one)

Le 18/09/2025 à 09:42, Stefan Rijnhart a écrit :
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

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

-- 
Matthieu Méquignon

+33 6 19 22 76 99

Reference