Summary

Enable extensible condition support.

Review Request #14705 — Created Nov. 24, 2025 and submitted Dec. 8, 2025, 4:30 a.m.

Information

Owner

maubin

Repository

ReviewBot

Branch

release-4.x

Bugs

Depends On

Reviewers

Groups

reviewbot

People

Description

Review Board is gaining a centralized ReviewRequestConditionsField

and a central registry that reflects any choices provided by extensions.

This change makes use of that, providing a compatibility class for older

versions of Review Board that behaves as before.
This change pretty much copies /r/14281 where we enabled extensible

condition support for RBIntegrations.

Testing Done


Ran unit tests.
Saw Power Pack's new owner and participant user role conditions

  in a tool config page.
Was able to trigger the tool using the owner condition (the

  participant condition requires more work in a separate change).
Tested on RB 7.0.4 dev server too.

Commits

Summary	ID
Enable extensible condition support. Review Board is gaining a centralized `ReviewRequestConditionsField` and a central registry that reflects any choices provided by extensions. This change makes use of that, providing a compatibility class for older versions of Review Board that behaves as before. This change pretty much copies /r/14281 where we enabled extensible condition support for RBIntegrations.	8ecf4f902a5de1c1d69ed1110a04e5e80cc21c64

Summary

Enable extensible condition support.

Review Board is gaining a centralized `ReviewRequestConditionsField` and a central registry that reflects any choices provided by extensions. This change makes use of that, providing a compatibility class for older versions of Review Board that behaves as before. This change pretty much copies /r/14281 where we enabled extensible condition support for RBIntegrations.

8ecf4f902a5de1c1d69ed1110a04e5e80cc21c64

Issues

Description	From	Last Updated
This doesn't seem appropriate. We might be running a type checker inside an RB7 tree with this code, plus lower …	david	Nov. 25, 2025, 8:40 a.m.
Let's add one more blank line here.	david	Nov. 25, 2025, 8:46 a.m.
too many blank lines (2) Column: 9 Error code: E303	reviewbot	Nov. 25, 2025, 9:27 a.m.
line too long (83 > 79 characters) Column: 80 Error code: E501	reviewbot	Nov. 25, 2025, 9:27 a.m.

flake8 passed.

JSHint passed.

extension/reviewbotext/compat/conditions.py (Diff revision 1)

The issue has been resolved. Show all issues

This doesn't seem appropriate. We might be running a type checker inside an RB7 tree with this code, plus lower down you do if TYPE_CHECKING

chipx86 Nov. 25, 2025, 8:54 a.m.

Type checkers get confused when there are try/excepts for imports. I spent a bunch of time on this, and the best pattern is to ensure that we're giving the type checker one path to check based on the upstream. We should be typing against the formal API and not compats, which may be stubs that proxy or something and can lead to worse code.

The pattern most compatible with type checkers is:

try:
    # Imports here
except ImportError:
    if TYPE_CHECKING:
        # Avoid confusion around these types further below.
        assert False
    else:
        # Stubs here

extension/reviewbotext/compat/conditions.py (Diff revision 1)
The issue has been resolved. Show all issues
```
Let's add one more blank line here.
```

Testing Done:

		Ran unit tests.
		Saw Power Pack's new owner and participant user role conditions in a tool config page.
		Was able to trigger the tool using the owner condition (the participant condition requires more work in a separate change).
	+	Tested on RB 7.0.4 dev server too.

Commits:

	Summary	ID
	Enable extensible condition support. Review Board is gaining a centralized `ReviewRequestConditionsField` and a central registry that reflects any choices provided by extensions. This change makes use of that, providing a compatibility class for older versions of Review Board that behaves as before. This change pretty much copies /r/14281 where we enabled extensible condition support for RBIntegrations.	9e4db91a047b82186c42a1888ebbea9d7e1f37ec
	Enable extensible condition support. Review Board is gaining a centralized `ReviewRequestConditionsField` and a central registry that reflects any choices provided by extensions. This change makes use of that, providing a compatibility class for older versions of Review Board that behaves as before. This change pretty much copies /r/14281 where we enabled extensible condition support for RBIntegrations.	8ecf4f902a5de1c1d69ed1110a04e5e80cc21c64

Diff:

Revision 2 (+148 -12)

Show changes

	extension/reviewbotext/forms.py
	extension/reviewbotext/compat/conditions.py

Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)

flake8 failed.

JSHint passed.

flake8

extension/reviewbotext/compat/conditions.py (Diff revision 2)
The issue has been dropped. Show all issues
```
too many blank lines (2)

Column: 9
Error code: E303
```
extension/reviewbotext/compat/conditions.py (Diff revision 2)
The issue has been resolved. Show all issues
```
line too long (83 > 79 characters)

Column: 80
Error code: E501
```

extension/reviewbotext/compat/conditions.py (Diff revision 2)

I still had to keep this here to stop flake8 from complaining about it being undefined below.

Ship it!

```
Ship It!
```

Ship it!

```
Ship It!
```

Status:: Completed
Change Summary:: Pushed to release-5.x (eb10d46)