Page MenuHomePhabricator

Don't let users set their own revisions to OK
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

It's bad practice to review your own code.

CR should prevent people from setting their own statuses to "OK" or "Resolved"


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement

Details

Reference
bz27797

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Medium.Nov 21 2014, 11:29 PM
bzimport set Reference to bz27797.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

Please also disable the option in the selection list :)

That is obviously only doable for when you're viewing a specific revision, rather than doing it from the code review list view.. Ok? ;)

Created attachment 8259
bleh

Attached:

Got a problem here. If we remove the ok status, and the user then saves it (after it's been set ok by someone else), to add another comment, that'll change the revision status, purely based on how CR attempts to save things.

Re-closing bug.

I'm not reconfiguring the whole of CR to stop this ;)

I was talking about disabling the HTML option in the HTML selection list!

Example:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_option_disabled

Point still stands. The user needs to be able to select it

So disabling it is going to do nothing

Also note that disabling on client-side is not solid,

$('*[disabled]').removeAttr('disabled'); // :-P

Ignore this comment though, it's just paranoia.

Unless I'm loosing it, my original point still stands, doesn't it?

If we disable something in the combo box, the user can't keep it selected, so without coding round it, and I mean, how do we know the author didn't want to set it to fixme later? And hence, we'll get changing statuses for no reason

(In reply to comment #9)

Unless I'm loosing it, my original point still stands, doesn't it?

If we disable something in the combo box, the user can't keep it selected, so
without coding round it, and I mean, how do we know the author didn't want to
set it to fixme later? And hence, we'll get changing statuses for no reason

AFAIAC, your point stands. I didn't reopen the bug ;-)

Got it, my request did not make sens.