hardwood-hq/hardwood - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

A fast minimal dependency implementation of Apache Parquet

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 61/100

External PR Merge Rate: 73%

Response Time: 18h

First Timer Success: 44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is hardwood-hq/hardwood welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

hardwood-hq/hardwood has a recorded first-timer success rate of 44.4%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in hardwood-hq/hardwood respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 18.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 61.2 C-Rank™ score (A Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 61.2 places hardwood-hq/hardwood in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for hardwood-hq/hardwood?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for hardwood-hq/hardwood is 73.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in hardwood-hq/hardwood?

hardwood-hq/hardwood currently has 33 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

hardwood-hq
hardwood-hq/hardwoodAWelcoming360
GitHub
Back to Explorer
hardwood-hq

hardwood-hq/hardwood

360
AWelcoming(61/100)Java

A fast minimal dependency implementation of Apache Parquet

Compare
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
9.0/10
Patience Score
8.8/10
Nitpick Rate
35%

Highly welcoming maintainers in hardwood-hq/hardwood. Prompt code reviews with positive guidance for new contributors.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • Ensure code complies with the project coding style
  • Keep PRs scoped to a single concern
  • Include context and link to the related issue

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • Do not submit PRs without linking an issue
  • Do not break existing tests without fixing them
  • Do not mix unrelated refactors in a single PR
Response Velocity
17 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
73.4%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
44.4%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
23 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
73.4%
Merge Gauge
44.4%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe59/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for hardwood-hq/hardwood
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/hardwood-hq/hardwood)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/hardwood-hq/hardwood?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Summary The four Filter-category JFR events report how much a filter skipped, but not which filter did it. In a process that runs many different reads, the counts cannot be attributed: Event Reports Missing dev.hardwood.RowGroupFilter row groups dropped by statistics/bloom push-down which predicate dev.hardwood.PageFilter pages dropped by the Column Index which predicate dev.hardwood.RecordFilter records dropped by per-record evaluation which predicate dev.hardwood.RowGroupByteRangeFilter row groups excluded by split selection which range Thread and timestamp are the only correlation available today, and nothing else in the recording names the predicate, so there is nothing to join them to. Proposal: add a predicate field to each, carrying a structural rendering with the literals elided: and(gt(id, ?), eq(label, ?)) or(isNull(city), lt(zip, ?)) Why literals are elided Two reasons, and they point the same way. Sensitivity. Every field these events carry today is schema

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

ParquetFileWriter.columnOrders() returns one TYPE_DEFINED_ORDER per leaf column and FileMetaDataWriter writes the list when it is non-empty, so produced files carry it. Nothing checks that they do. It is worth pinning because of what depends on it rather than because it looks fragile. A reader only trusts min_value / max_value under the order the footer declares; with column_orders absent, parquet-java falls back to the deprecated min / max semantics, under which a BYTE_ARRAY bound is compared signed. Hardwood writes STRING bounds unsigned and DECIMAL bounds signed, both correct under TYPE_DEFINED_ORDER — so a file that lost the list would have its string statistics silently misread by every other implementation, and every existing statistics test would still pass, since they all read the file back through Hardwood's own reader, which does not need the list to know its own conventions. That is the shape of bug the interop gate exists to catch and currently cannot. What to do Two asse

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

On the hardwood dive column chunk detail screen, the Storage group shows Size statistics chunk + 2 pages while the Drill into menu on the same frame already shows ▶ Pages 2 pages Column index present · levels Offset index present · unencoded The three menu entries say everything the row does: how many pages there are, that the column index carries per-page level histograms, and that the offset index carries per-page unencoded sizes. That the chunk itself has a SizeStatistics is in turn implied by the populated Unencoded, Present and Records rows a few lines above. _designs/DIVE_SIZE_STATISTICS.md states the rule this violates — dive drops rows the screen already carries, which is why Present and Records are hidden for a column that cannot be null or repeat. Worth keeping is the degraded form, — (not written): that one says something the menu does not, since a chunk with no SizeStatistics still has a page index and vice versa. So the change is to

📅 Opened Aug 17, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Problem A parity pass over dive's screens against the inspect commands turned up several facts that dive shows and the commands do not. Each is a small additive change; they are grouped here rather than filed individually. Missing from Fact Where dive shows it inspect pages Page byte offset in the file OffsetIndexScreen.java:110 — #, Offset, Size, First row inspect pages Uncompressed size per page PagesScreen.java:213 has both Comp and Uncomp; the command has Compressed only inspect pages The column index null_pages flag ColumnIndexScreen.java:203 — Null page column inspect rowgroups Column-index / offset-index presence per row group RowGroupsScreen.java:113 — CI, OI columns inspect rowgroups Logical type alongside the physical type ColumnChunksScreen.java:103 — Logical column inspect rowgroups One column across all row groups, with stats ColumnAcrossRowGroupsScreen.java:135 — RG, Rows, Pages, Comp, Ratio, Dict, CI, Nulls, Min, Max The last one is the only

📅 Opened Aug 9, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Problem hardwood footer and dive's Footer screen share a name and almost no content. The command prints five lines (FooterCommand.java:72-76): file size, footer offset, footer length, and the two magic markers. Dive's FooterScreen renders considerably more from the same footer (FooterScreen.java:289-344): File size, format version, created-by Footer trailer offset and trailer byte count The data region vs footer+indexes byte split Encoding histogram across the file Codec histogram across the file Index coverage: how many chunks carry a column index, an offset index, a bloom filter Dictionary coverage: how many chunks have a dictionary page Aggregates: compressed, uncompressed, compression ratio None of that is reachable non-interactively. Bloom-filter presence in particular is not surfaced by any command at all — a grep of cli/command/ for loom returns nothing — even though it decides whether eq/in pushdown can use one. The aggregates are cheap: everything above is derived from f

📅 Opened Aug 9, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute
Looking for more Java beginner tasks?Explore Java GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for hardwood-hq/hardwood

When evaluating whether to contribute to hardwood-hq/hardwood, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of hardwood-hq/hardwood acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 17 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 73.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to hardwood-hq/hardwood

01

Is hardwood-hq/hardwood welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

hardwood-hq/hardwood has a recorded first-timer success rate of 44.4%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~17 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 61.2 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 61.2 places hardwood-hq/hardwood in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for hardwood-hq/hardwood?

The external pull request merge rate is 73.4%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in hardwood-hq/hardwood?

Yes, hardwood-hq/hardwood currently has 33 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for hardwood-hq/hardwood are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.