Add interactive UI for comment issue verification.

Review Request #9173 — Created Sept. 6, 2017 and submitted

Information

Review Board
release-3.0.x
4a102df...

Reviewers

A previous change added the UI for displaying the "Waiting for verification"
state. This change adds the UI to enable and manipulate that state.

  • Created new comments via the comment dialog and the review dialog and
    verified that the "Require verification" checkbox correctly persisted into
    extra_data for both cases.
  • Checked the state transitions from open -> verify and verify -> closed
    for both "Fixed" and "Dropped" cases.
  • Ran js-tests.
  • Ran unit tests.
Description From Last Updated

Col: 18 ['require_verification'] is better written in dot notation.

reviewbotreviewbot

Can you add docs here, and use @property and @property.setter for these?

chipx86chipx86

Docs here, too.

chipx86chipx86

I think you might need a blank line here for it to render properly.

chipx86chipx86

These can be in the return below.

chipx86chipx86

Let's also factor in Local Site admins, maybe also add a permission for this?

chipx86chipx86

Can you compare user.pk to self.get_review().user_id to optimistically prevent a query on the user?

chipx86chipx86

Col: 58 Missing semicolon.

reviewbotreviewbot

I don't know that #: will work reliably here. property includes a doc= keyword argument that should be used instead.

chipx86chipx86
Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)
flake8 passed.
JSHint failed.

JSHint

david
Review request changed
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. Can you add docs here, and use @property and @property.setter for these?

    1. I have documentation for the property itself. Documenting the setter and getter individually seems weird, since those docstrings will get subsumed by the property.

  3. Docs here, too.

  4. reviewboard/reviews/models/base_comment.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     

    I think you might need a blank line here for it to render properly.

    1. We don't have that in other places that use this format, so I'll keep it as-is.

    2. The other ones are wrong. I just confirmed that this will fail to render. A blank line is required in the spec.

  5. reviewboard/reviews/models/base_comment.py (Diff revision 2)
     
     
     

    These can be in the return below.

  6. Let's also factor in Local Site admins, maybe also add a permission for this?

  7. Can you compare user.pk to self.get_review().user_id to optimistically prevent a query on the user?

  8. 
      
david
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. reviewboard/reviews/models/base_comment.py (Diff revision 3)
     
     
     
     

    I don't know that #: will work reliably here. property includes a doc= keyword argument that should be used instead.

  3. 
      
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. 
      
david
chipx86
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
david
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to release-3.0.x (d2ee7fa)
Loading...