* wip: identify whats needed to obviate ghostlinkd
* fix: hardlink new charter files to ftp directory
* fix: hardlink new charter files to ftp directory (continued)
* chore: bring settings comment up to date
* chore: add archive and ftp dirs to setup of various environments
* fix: test charter submits write to ftp dir
* chore: remove debug
* fix: test charter approval writes to ftp dir
* fix: link review revisions into ftp dir
* fix: link to all archive and ftp on submission post
* chore: clean comments, move action to github issue
* fix: link idindex files to all archive and ftp
* chore: deflake
* chore: remove TODO comment
* fix: use settings
* chore: rename new setting
* feat: Allow reviewer to accept a review they're previously rejected
* feat: Add a reviewer who has previously rejected a review to the list of suggested reviewers.
This largely un-does d105f8b, at the request of at least one team secretary.
* fix: Went a little overboard on the previous commit
one_assignment still has to exclude reviewers who rejected the assignment,
or they could end up being the suggested reviewer.
* fix: Actually do the assignment
* fix: If there's an existing assignment, don't create a new one
* style: Restructure conditional for clarity
* test: Add test cases for accepting or assigning a review assignment after rejecting it
* Added a new review team setting
allow_reviewer_to_reject_after_deadline that will allow rejecting
review requests, even after the deadline is past. Also modified that
the secretary, or whoever manages the reviews is always allowed to
reject the review regardless of the deadline as he/she could change
the deadline anyways.
* Fixed but in view_reviews (wrong variable name), added more test
cases to the test_reviews.py for different reject cases.
* test: More thoroughly exercise assignment rejection
* chore: Renumber migration
* test: Unrelated user cannot reject assignments
---------
Co-authored-by: Jennifer Richards <jennifer@staff.ietf.org>
* fix: Do not add user to the top of queue after reject (fixes#4505)
Added a checkbox in the reject review dialog to ask whether user
wants to be added to the top of the queue or not. Default is off.
* Do not change request_assignment_next if wants_to_be_next is not True.
Set the request_assignment_next also in LeastRecentlyUsedReviewerQueuePolicy
so it can be used to override the assignment policy rules (i.e., if
someone has once per month, but he rejects review with wants_to_be_next set
to true, he will get new assignment immediately, not after one month).
* Added wants_to_be_next to test cases too.
* Fixed test function prototypes, they can't have any parameters, only
self. Added test cases for test_return_reviewer_to_rotation_top both
for RotateAlphabeticallyReviewerQueuePolicyTest and
LeastRecentlyUsedReviewerQueuePolicyTest.
* refactor: replace datetime.now with timezone.now
* refactor: migrate model fields to use timezone.now as default
* refactor: replace datetime.today with timezone.now
datetime.datetime.today() is equivalent to datetime.datetime.now(); both
return a naive datetime with the current local time.
* refactor: rephrase datetime.now(tz) as timezone.now().astimezone(tz)
This is effectively the same, but is less likely to encourage accidental
use of naive datetimes.
* refactor: revert datetime.today() change to old migrations
* refactor: change a missed datetime.now to timezone.now
* chore: renumber timezone_now migration
* chore: renumber migrations
Replaced review name collision resolution code with a decision to not save when it occurs. Fixes#3092.
- Legacy-Id: 18559
Note: SVN reference [18533] has been migrated to Git commit 0ff5172a89d5a7ad48cb1fd03b1c8926e26e50f9
This abstracts queue management, making it possible to implement different
policies for each team. It provides two concrete policies:
RotateAlphabeticallyReviewerQueuePolicy, which rotates an alphabetically
ordered reviewer list with consideration for skip indications, and is the
default policy; and LeastRecentlyUsedReviewerQueuePolicy, a simple
least-recently-used policy. Also see issues #2721 and #2656.
- Legacy-Id: 17121
Fix#2061 - Improve 'complete review' workflow for secretaries.
When a secretary completes a review, 'link to a review message'
is automatically selected, and the first non-reply mail is used to
fill in the review details. The secretary can still modify all details.
The order of fields for secretaries is also modified to fit this workflow.
All cases where 'link to review message' is used, by reviewers or
secretaries, now attempt to fill in the 'reviewed version' if found
in the email subject.
- Legacy-Id: 17105
Note: SVN reference [17070] has been migrated to Git commit dc9546211f
Fix#2074, fix#2358 - Add history for assignments, requests and unavailability.
- Legacy-Id: 17104
Note: SVN reference [17069] has been migrated to Git commit 65d84155b6
When a secretary completes a review, "link to a review message"
is automatically selected, and the first non-reply mail is used to
fill in the review details. The secretary can still modify all details.
The order of fields for secretaries is also modified to fit this workflow.
All cases where "link to review message" is used, by reviewers or
secretaries, now attempt to fill in the "reviewed version" if found
in the email subject.
Commit ready for merge.
- Legacy-Id: 17070
Fix#2050 - Allow adding review wishes from document and search pages.
On the main page of a document and in document search results, a new
button allows review team members to add a review wish for that document.
For reviewers that are only on one team, this essentially works
identical to tracking a document. Reviewers that are on multiple teams
are lead through an intermediate step to select a review team, and then
returned to their search or document page.
- Legacy-Id: 16985
Note: SVN reference [16939] has been migrated to Git commit 6e55f26dbd
Refs #2217 - Small cleanup from changeset [16924]
- Legacy-Id: 16947
Note: SVN reference [16924] has been migrated to Git commit 871a4b653b
Note: SVN reference [16927] has been migrated to Git commit 730e64d253
On the main page of a document and in document search results, a new
button allows review team members to add a review wish for that document.
For reviewers that are only on one team, this essentially works
identical to tracking a document. Reviewers that are on multiple teams
are lead through an intermediate step to select a review team, and then
returned to their search or document page.
Commit ready for merge.
- Legacy-Id: 16939
