|Resolved||epriestley||T10967 Move Differential reviewers back to a dedicated database storage table|
|Resolved||None||T12496 "differential.sticky-accept" isn't working because of overbroad accept downgrading|
- Mentioned In
- Z1336: General Chat
2017 Week 13 (Very Early April)
- Mentioned Here
- rP56dd1b297c3e: (stable) Don't use "--" to separate flags and arguments in "git ls-remote"
D17653: Fix an issue where rejecting reviewers weren't powerful enough
rP517372a1e0c4: (stable) Fix join and remove policy checks for Conpherence
D17590: Prevent Send on Enter in Fullscreen Remarkup Mode
T10967: Move Differential reviewers back to a dedicated database storage table
I'm not sure if what I'm seeing is a bug or expected (or even if related to this). We have sticky accept set to true (just as default).
- @cspeckmim creates a diff with reviewers @epriestley and @chad
- @epriestley requests changes to the revision
- @cspeckmim makes changes
- @chad accepts the revision
- @cspeckmim makes one last change
- Revision is in status Needs Review
Is this expected? I thought it was a bug at first but then saw that in the history someone previously requested changes and never updated their status to accept, so wasn't sure what it should be placed in.
(Currently on 517372a1e0c48d0bc1961af06e132b8537776565)
The state transitions are a bit tricky. "Plan Changes" temporarily sets the status to "Plan Changes", but does not "address" (internally, "void") individual reviewer state on its own.
The reason for this is so that this sequence works:
- Reviewer accepts.
- Author plans changes.
- Author requests review ("oops, I actually didn't need to make any changes, this is good as-is").
- Desired result: revision transitions to "Accepted", because the reviewer previously accepted exactly this set of changes.
Normally, when you update, that does void individual reviewer state. "Accept" becomes "Accepted Older" and "Reject" becomes "Rejected Older". Then we re-run the reviewer state rules. Since all "Reject" have been turned into "Rejected Older", the revision transitions to "Needs Review". The workflow analog is "The author has addressed all the feedback and updated the revision."
The expectation is that authors normally do not update revisions until they want more feedback from reviewers.