Summary

Update action extension hooks and unit tests.

Review Request #12775 — Created Jan. 9, 2023 and submitted Feb. 27, 2023, 8:28 a.m.

Information

Owner

david

Repository

Review Board

Branch

release-6.x

Bugs

Depends On

Reviewers

Groups

reviewboard

People

Description

This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the
extension hooks and unit tests.

I've repurposed the old ActionHook (which was just used as a generic
base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a
list of BaseAction instances and handles registering and unregistering
as appropriate.

The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the
dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed
upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as
deprecated, and will warn appropriately.

This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests.

Testing Done


Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and

  legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately.
Ran python unit tests.
Ran js-tests.
Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related

  pages for content and spelling.

Commits

Summary	ID
Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.	52abd15e9ab01d9a352a7ecff6a8621953183ded

Summary

Update action extension hooks and unit tests.

This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.

52abd15e9ab01d9a352a7ecff6a8621953183ded

Issues

Description	From	Last Updated
This will only be emitted once per process per text, so if we could put in an identifier like the …	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:19 a.m.
Same as above.	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:19 a.m.
Same as above.	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:19 a.m.
Same as above.	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:19 a.m.
Same as above.	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:19 a.m.
Can the docs be updated here to show these are deprecated and will be removed? We should also just make …	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:22 a.m.
JS naming slipped it. This should be deprecation_message (or really, just message would be fine). Same below.	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:06 a.m.
Blank line between statements/blocks.	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:06 a.m.
Can this be alphabetized?	chipx86	Feb. 3, 2023, 9:09 a.m.

flake8 passed.

JSHint passed.

Change Summary:

Add in some changes that were stuck in a different commit.

Commits:

	Summary	ID
	Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests.	6ed4daa1b17be78d209041b21acb9de34498258f
	Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.	d1f9c805bedc5f25f1872ab2d0e33acfcd68b6e8

Diff:

Revision 2 (+1318 -1100)

Show changes

	reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py
	reviewboard/extensions/templatetags/rb_extensions.py
	reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_action_hooks.py
	reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_sandbox_hooks.py
	reviewboard/reviews/actions.py
	reviewboard/reviews/tests/test_actions.py
	reviewboard/static/rb/css/pages/base.less
	reviewboard/templates/extensions/action.html
	2 more

Checks run (2 succeeded)

flake8 passed.

JSHint passed.

Change Summary:

Moved some code out of this commit.

Description:

		This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the
		extension hooks and unit tests.

		I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic
		base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a
		list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering
		as appropriate.

		The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the
		dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed
		upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as
		deprecated, and will warn appropriately.

~		This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests.
	~	This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests.
-		The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also
-		involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit
-		their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript
-		side on pages that were not review-request related.

Commits:

	Summary	ID
	Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.	d1f9c805bedc5f25f1872ab2d0e33acfcd68b6e8
	Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.	6e93fe0f9d0568fa0344e607b8267c0024e825a2

Diff:

Revision 3 (+1106 -1048)

Show changes

	reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py
	reviewboard/extensions/templatetags/rb_extensions.py
	reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_action_hooks.py
	reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_sandbox_hooks.py
	reviewboard/reviews/actions.py
	reviewboard/static/rb/css/pages/base.less
	reviewboard/templates/extensions/action.html
	reviewboard/templates/extensions/header_action_dropdown.html
	1 more

Checks run (2 succeeded)

flake8 passed.

JSHint passed.

reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py (Diff revision 3)

Show all issues

This will only be emitted once per process per text, so if we could put in an identifier like the ID, that could do a lot to help people porting extensions.

reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py (Diff revision 3)
Show all issues
```
Same as above.
```
reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py (Diff revision 3)
Show all issues
```
Same as above.
```
reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py (Diff revision 3)
Show all issues
```
Same as above.
```
reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py (Diff revision 3)
Show all issues
```
Same as above.
```

reviewboard/extensions/templatetags/rb_extensions.py (Diff revision 3)

Show all issues

Can the docs be updated here to show these are deprecated and will be removed? We should also just make these emit a warning (which will help us find and remove these later).

david Feb. 3, 2023, 11:49 a.m.

I think we can actually just remove these now. They're only used in our main templates.

reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_action_hooks.py (Diff revision 3)

Show all issues

JS naming slipped it. This should be deprecation_message (or really, just message would be fine).

Same below.

reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_action_hooks.py (Diff revision 3)
Show all issues
```
Blank line between statements/blocks.
```
reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_action_hooks.py (Diff revision 3)
Show all issues
```
Can this be alphabetized?
```

Change Summary:


Move all extension-related changes into this commit.
Made requested changes.

Commits:

	Summary	ID
	Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.	6e93fe0f9d0568fa0344e607b8267c0024e825a2
	Update action extension hooks and unit tests. This is the final change for the new actions framework, covering the extension hooks and unit tests. I've repurposed the old `ActionHook` (which was just used as a generic base class) to be the new entry point for actions. This simply takes a list of `BaseAction` instances and handles registering and unregistering as appropriate. The old legacy action hooks have been updated to translate the dictionary definitions into BaseAction instances, which are then passed upward to the ActionHook base class. These are all now treated as deprecated, and will warn appropriately. This also fixes up a variety of issues discovered with the unit tests. The majority of these fixes are in the extension tests, but this also involved updating the review request actions to use `apply_to` to limit their rendering so that we wouldn't attempt to render their JavaScript side on pages that were not review-request related. Testing Done: - Built an extension that used all of the hooks, both the modern and legacy. Saw that everything worked appropriately. - Ran python unit tests. - Ran js-tests. - Built codebase and manual documentation and checked all related pages for content and spelling.	52abd15e9ab01d9a352a7ecff6a8621953183ded

Diff:

Revision 4 (+1894 -1246)

Show changes

	docs/manual/extending/index.rst
	docs/manual/extending/coderef/index.rst
	docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/action-hooks.rst
	reviewboard/extensions/hooks.py
	reviewboard/extensions/templatetags/rb_extensions.py
	reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_action_hooks.py
	reviewboard/extensions/tests/test_sandbox_hooks.py
	reviewboard/reviews/actions.py
	5 more

Checks run (2 succeeded)

flake8 passed.

JSHint passed.

Ship it!

```
Ship It!
```

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to release-6.x (4be7938)