Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

flag correct versions for a developer appeal #22975

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025

Conversation

eviljeff
Copy link
Member

@eviljeff eviljeff commented Jan 7, 2025

Fixes: mozilla/addons#15182 and fixes mozilla/addons#15247

Description

Flag the versions that were affected by a version rejection if the developer appeals.

Context

Until recently there was no easy way to reference the versions rejected by the ContentDecision, so we could only flag the current version if the developer appealed the rejection.

Testing

  • enable all the DSA related waffle switches and have a Cinder API key in your settings
  • Reject a version of an add-on in the reviewer tools - either an unlisted version or a non-latest version - i.e. a version that wouldn't be the addon's current_version (unlisted is better, because that's the use-case the issue was filed for)
  • appeal that decision with the appeal link in the email
  • go back to the reviewer tools and see that the appealed version is flagged for NHR

Checklist

  • Add #ISSUENUM at the top of your PR to an existing open issue in the mozilla/addons repository.
  • Successfully verified the change locally.
  • The change is covered by automated tests, or otherwise indicated why doing so is unnecessary/impossible.
  • Add before and after screenshots (Only for changes that impact the UI).
  • Add or update relevant docs reflecting the changes made.

@eviljeff eviljeff marked this pull request as ready for review January 7, 2025 12:08
@eviljeff eviljeff requested review from a team and KevinMind and removed request for a team January 7, 2025 12:08
@eviljeff eviljeff force-pushed the 15182-unlisted-appeal-nhr branch from 07b3443 to 4995c45 Compare January 7, 2025 12:21
Copy link
Contributor

@KevinMind KevinMind left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few questions. Will try to verify.

src/olympia/abuse/tests/test_cinder.py Show resolved Hide resolved
src/olympia/abuse/tests/test_cinder.py Show resolved Hide resolved
src/olympia/abuse/tests/test_cinder.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@eviljeff eviljeff requested a review from KevinMind January 8, 2025 10:20
Copy link
Contributor

@KevinMind KevinMind left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The code and tests look good. I wasn't able to verify locally but that seems to be an unrelated issue. Happy to let further verification happen on dev.

@eviljeff eviljeff merged commit 8c58301 into mozilla:master Jan 10, 2025
49 checks passed
Copy link

sentry-io bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Suspect Issues

This pull request was deployed and Sentry observed the following issues:

  • ‼️ ConnectionError: b'{"detail": ["Appealer has already appealed this series of decisions"]}' olympia.abuse.tasks.appeal_to_cinder View Issue

Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants