Fix bugs related to general comments and Ship It indications in review emails.

Review Request #8240 — Created June 12, 2016 and submitted

Information

Review Board
release-3.0.x
a36a3b6...

Reviewers

Address two inconsistencies where general comments were not being handled in
the same fashion as the other classes of comments (e.g. diff, file attachment,
and screenshot comments). These would lead to errant details in review emails
for reviews where a Ship It had been declared.

  1. The existence of general comments was not being considered when determining
    the ship_it_only state of Review objects. This resulted in review emails
    where the X-ReviewBoard-ShipIt-Only header was set even when general comments
    were present.
  2. The existence of general comments with open issues was not being considered
    when determining the need for the "Fix it, then Ship it!" designation for review
    emails. This produced review emails with the "Ship it!" designation, even when
    the review contained general comments with issues.

To resolve both bugs, separate queries that accounted for the other three
classes of comments were centralized into a new function, has_comments(),
and a query for general comments was introduced here as well. Furthermore, with
respect to item 2, the logic for determining the presence of any comments with
issues is now conditioned on review.ship_it, since this is the only state under
which this information is necessary. Previously this was calculated
unconditionally, which was overkill.

To facilitate consistency and testability, a FIX_IT_THEN_SHIP_IT_TEXT
constant has been added to the Review class to hold the
"Fix it, then Ship it!" text. This is analogous to SHIP_IT_TEXT which
already exists. These constants are now utilized in the review email templates
rather than the prior string literals. This introduces one minor delta for
Ship It emails. Previously, the string literal was "Ship it!", whereas the
string in SHIP_IT_TEXT is "Ship It!'. That is, the "I" in "It" is now
capitalized.

Also, added GeneralComment to the list of comment classes discussed in the
documentation for the CommentDetailDisplayHook.

  • Augmented all existing unit tests related to review emails with Ship It to
    verify that "Fix it, then Ship it!" does not appear in the message.
  • Added a new unit test for review emails with a Ship It and general
    comments. This is analogous to existing tests for the other three classes of
    comments. This test would fail without the fix.
  • Added new unit tests for all four classes of comments to further test review
    email's with a Ship It and comments with an opened issue. Prior to the fix,
    the specific test for the general comment class would fail.

Confirmed all unit tests pass. Built docs and reviewed.

Description From Last Updated

Checking review.ship_it_only and then re-doing queries to check for open issues means we have to hit the database up to …

brenniebrennie

Can we refactor this into a method like: def has_comments(check_for_issues=False): qs = [ self.comments, self.file_attachment_comments, self.screenshot_comments, self.general_comments, ] if check_for_issues: …

brenniebrennie

Single space after a period. "Whether or not" "with open issues only"

brenniebrennie

Mind adding a comment next to these that these are explicitly not marked for localization because they're used in e-mails, …

daviddavid

I think this would be slightly clearer if the parameter was named only_issues

daviddavid

This should be in the imperative mood ("Return whether" rather than "Returns whether")

daviddavid

This can easily fit all on one line.

daviddavid

The description should be on the line after the type: bool: ``True`` if the review contains any comments/issues and ``False`` …

daviddavid
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
  2. 
      
brennie
  1. Thanks for catching this! I have some refactoring suggestions to clean up the code (it was already a bit messy before you got to it).

  2. reviewboard/notifications/email.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Checking review.ship_it_only and then re-doing queries to check for open issues means we have to hit the database up to 8 times (twice for each comment type).

    I also prefer the name has_issues over fix_it_then_ship_it (its more wordy). However, you are right that we do not always need to calculate it!

    With my suggested refactor for has_comments, we can do:

    has_issues = (review.ship_it and
                  review.has_comments(check_for_issues=True))
    

    This is a lot cleaner, IMO.

  3. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Can we refactor this into a method like:

    def has_comments(check_for_issues=False):
        qs = [
            self.comments,
            self.file_attachment_comments,
            self.screenshot_comments,
            self.general_comments,
        ]
    
        if check_for_issues:
            qs = [
                q.filter(issue_opened=True)
                for q in qs
            ]
    
        return any(
            q.exists()
            for q in qs
        )
    

    Then we can refactor ship_it_only to use has_comments(check_for_issues=False) and mail_review can be refactored as well.

  4. 
      
gmyers
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
  2. 
      
david
  1. 
      
  2. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Mind adding a comment next to these that these are explicitly not marked for localization because they're used in e-mails, where we don't want to take the submitting user's locale into effect?

  3. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    I think this would be slightly clearer if the parameter was named only_issues

  4. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
    Show all issues

    This should be in the imperative mood ("Return whether" rather than "Returns whether")

  5. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    This can easily fit all on one line.

  6. 
      
gmyers
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
  2. 
      
david
  1. Just one tiny nit:

  2. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revision 3)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    The description should be on the line after the type:

    bool:
    ``True`` if the review contains any comments/issues and
    ``False`` otherwise.
    
  3. 
      
gmyers
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
  2. 
      
brennie
  1. 
      
  2. reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py (Diff revisions 1 - 4)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Single space after a period.

    "Whether or not"

    "with open issues only"

    1. I'll take care of the first two. With respect to the third, any concern that this could cause confusion about what is being checked here, between a comment with issue_opened = True and one with issue_status = open (I admittedly don't have the greatest sense of the distinction between these fields)?

    2. The issue_status field only applies if issue_opened is True. Probably we should be specific and say "check for comments where ``issue_opened`` is ``True``"

  3. 
      
gmyers
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        reviewboard/notifications/email.py
        reviewboard/notifications/tests.py
        reviewboard/reviews/models/review.py
    
    Ignored Files:
        docs/manual/extending/extensions/hooks/comment-detail-display-hook.rst
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.txt
        reviewboard/templates/notifications/review_email.html
    
    
  2. 
      
gmyers
Review request changed
Status:
Completed
Change Summary:
Pushed to release-3.0.x (36d91a6)