This commit adds a new Revise... action that can be taken
for queued post reviewables. This will open a modal where
the user can select a Reason from a preconfigured list
(or by choosing Other..., a custom reason) and provide feedback
to the user about their post.
The post will be rejected still, but a PM will also be sent to
the user so they have an opportunity to improve their post when
they resubmit it.
`ReviewableQueuedPost` got refactored a while back to use the more
appropriate `target_created_by` for the user of the post being queued
instead of `created_by`. The change was not extended to the `DELETE
/review/:id` endpoint leading to error responses for a user attempting
to deleting their own queued post.
This fix extends the `Reviewable` lookup implementation in
`ReviewablesController#destroy` and Guardian implementation to account
for this change.
This PR adds the ability to destroy reviewables for a passed user via the API. This was not possible before as this action was reserved for reviewables for you created only.
If a user is an admin and calls the `#destroy` action from the API they are able to destroy a reviewable for a passed user. A user can be targeted by passed either their:
- username
- external_id (for SSO)
to the request.
In the case you attempt to destroy a non-personal reviewable and
- You are not an admin
- You do not access the `#destroy` action via the API
you will raise a `Discourse::InvalidAccess` (403) and will not succeed in destroying the reviewable.
1. What is the problem here?
When a user's reviewables count changes, the changes are published via
MessageBus in a background Sidekiq job which means there is a delay before the
client receives the MessageBus message with the updated count. During
the time the reviewables count for a user has been updated and the time
when the client receives the MessageBus message with the updated count,
a user may view the reviewables list in the user menu. When that happens, the number of
reviewables in the list may be out of sync with the count shown.
2. What is the fix?
Going forward, the response for the `ReviewablesController#user_menu_list` action will include the user's reviewables count as
the `reviewables_count` attribute. This is then used by the client side
to update the user's reviewables count to ensure that the reviewables
list and count are kept in sync.
Users who can access the review queue can claim a pending reviewable(s) which means that the claimed reviewable(s) can only be handled by the user who claimed it. Currently, we show claimed reviewables in the user menu, but this can be annoying for other reviewers because they can't do anything about a reviewable claimed by someone. So this PR makes sure that we only show in the user menu reviewables that are claimed by nobody or claimed by the current user.
Internal topic: t/77235.
This commit makes pending reviewables show up in the main tab (a.k.a. "all notifications" tab). Pending reviewables along with unread notifications are always shown first and they're sorted based on their creation date (most recent comes first).
The dismiss button currently only shows up if there are unread notifications and it doesn't dismiss pending reviewables. We may follow up with another change soon that allows makes the dismiss button work with reviewables and remove them from the list without taking any action on them.
Follow-up to 079450c9e4.
Currently, the reviewables tab in the user menu shows pending reviewables at the top of the menu and fills the remaining space in the menu with old/handled reviewables. This PR makes the revieables tab show only pending reviewables and hides the tab altogether from the menu if there are no pending reviewables. We're going to follow-up with another change soon that will show pending reviewables in the main tab of the user menu.
Internal topic: t/73220.
The previous commits removed reviewables leading to a bad user
experience. This commit updates the status, replaces actions with a
message and greys out the reviewable.
Currently, when the target is not available we're returning the error message "`You are not permitted to view the requested resource`" which is not clear.
The API now accepts an array called "ids" to select specific items. This parameter is not present on the UI.
Example usage: "yoursite.com/review.json?ids[]=1&ids[]=2"
Feature for `Must Approve Users` setup. When a user is rejected, a staff member can optionally set a reason for audit purposes. In addition, feedback email can be sent to the user.
Meta: https://meta.discourse.org/t/account-rejection-email/103112/8
When a tab is open but left unattended for a while, the red, green, and blue
pills tend to go out of sync.
So whevener we open the notifications menu, we sync up the notification count
(eg. blue and green pills) with the server.
However, the reviewable count (eg. the red pill) is not a notification and
is located in the hamburger menu. This commit adds a new route on the server
side to retrieve the reviewable count for the current user and a ping
(refreshReviewableCount) from the client side to sync the reviewable count
whenever they open the hamburger menu.
REFACTOR: I also refactored the hamburger-menu widget code to prevent repetitive uses
of "this.".
PERF: I improved the performance of the 'notify_reviewable' job by doing only 1 query
to the database to retrieve all the pending reviewables and then tallying based on the
various rights.
* DEV: Use `render_json_error` (Adds specs for Admin::GroupsController)
* DEV: Use a specific error on blank category slug (Fixes a `render_json_error` warning)
* DEV: Use a specific error on reviewable claim conflict (Fixes a `render_json_error` warning)
* DEV: Use specific errors in Admin::UsersController (Fixes `render_json_error` warnings)
* FIX: PublishedPages error responses
* FIX: TopicsController error responses (There was an issue of two separate `Topic` instances for the same record. This makes sure there's only one up-to-date instance.)
We like to stay as close as possible to latest with rubocop cause the cops
get better.
This update required some code changes, specifically the default is to avoid
explicit returns where implicit is done
Also this renames a few rules
Note:
```
def foo(bar: 1)
end
foo({bar: 2})
# raises a deprecation, instead use:
foo(**{bar: 2})
```
Additionally when matching regexes always use strings. It does not make
sense to match a non string to a regex.
Zeitwerk simplifies working with dependencies in dev and makes it easier reloading class chains.
We no longer need to use Rails "require_dependency" anywhere and instead can just use standard
Ruby patterns to require files.
This is a far reaching change and we expect some followups here.
If you click a (?) icon beside the reviewable status a pop up will
appear with expanded informatio that explains how the reviewable got its
score, and how it compares to system thresholds.
This is a feature that used to be present in discourse-assign but is
much easier to implement in core. It also allows a topic to be assigned
without it claiming for review and vice versa and allows it to work with
category group reviewers.
We found score hard to understand. It is still there behind the scenes
for sorting purposes, but it is no longer shown.
You can now filter by minimum priority (low, med, high) instead of
score.
In certain edge cases, the message bus won't send the message to the
user about the updated review count and it can go out of sync.
This patch synchronizes the review count every time:
1. The user visits the "Needs Review" page
2. Every time the user performs an action
Includes support for flags, reviewable users and queued posts, with REST API
backwards compatibility.
Co-Authored-By: romanrizzi <romanalejandro@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: jjaffeux <j.jaffeux@gmail.com>
Loïc Guitaut
Martin Brennan
Selase Krakani
Isaac Janzen
Alan Guo Xiang Tan
David Taylor
Osama Sayegh
Dan Ungureanu
Vinoth Kannan
Mark VanLandingham
Roman Rizzi
Robin Ward
Krzysztof Kotlarek
Régis Hanol
Jarek Radosz
Sam Saffron
