feat: Add PeerReviewer model for improved peer review support #748
Conversation
django/library/migrations/0030_alter_peerreviewer_subject_areas.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Karthik99999
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
2 times, most recently
from
66b67b1 to
b20b9a8
Compare
Karthik99999
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
from
59bc08d to
efa73a8
Compare
Karthik99999
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
from
efa73a8 to
0fa16a9
Compare
Co-authored-by: Karthik Bandagonda <Karthik99999@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: sgfost <sgfost@users.noreply.github.com>
- use get_or_create to update a reviewer when trying to create while one already exists - allow users to create or update their own reviewer record. this allows anyone to insert themselves into the reviewer pool at any time, should consider whether this is desirable or we should add a pending status Co-authored-by: Karthik Bandagonda <Karthik99999@users.noreply.github.com>
This prevents the reviewer object on the parent component from being mutated before the form is submitted
Karthik99999
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
from
0fa16a9 to
2aa9678
Compare
Karthik99999
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
from
2aa9678 to
fd51071
Compare
| const { updateReviewer: update } = useReviewEditorAPI(); | ||
|
|
||
| async function changeActiveState(reviewer: Reviewer, isActive: boolean) { | ||
| // FIXME: Make server accept partial reviewer object without defining memberProfileId |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this still need to happen?
Karthik99999
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
from
687b514 to
eec026b
Compare
sgfost
force-pushed
the
peer-reviewers
branch
from
e3ef06d to
036afdd
Compare
permission class was not set up properly, now correctly drops through to has_object_permission for retrieve, update, etc. * add a profile link to reviewer card
|
The pagination issue and not being able to retrieve/update your own reviewer record on an unprivileged account are fixed and on staging |
provide string representation of PeerReviewer
|
I'll fix these up to get it moving. There's also a small oversight in the browser tests with dates which is causing that to fail today |
|
thanks @sgfost ! I was wondering about the e2e tests referring to dates with scalar integers, comses.net/e2e/cypress/fixtures/data.json Line 45 in ff5c42d |
|
the least fragile way I can think of doing it (i.e. not relying on this specific datepicker too much) is to keep the scalar day-of-the-month input but always using the following month. It'd probably be ideal if there was a way to input a string date with the keyboard but I'll just fix the test for now rather than hack at the datepicker |
* order peer review invitations by date sent (most recent first) * fix an issue with invalid dates in the e2e tests
see comses/planning#256
This PR currently does not include the functionality of users being able to request to become peer reviewers.