Includes the conflict-review document contents in the email sent with the results of the conflict review.

Fixes bug ietf-tools#883
 - Legacy-Id: 4873

Author: rjsparks

ietf/doc/views_conflict_review.py

@@ -272,10 +272,8 @@ def edit_ad(request, name):
 
 def default_approval_text(review):
 
-    # Leaving these commented out lines for current_text to make it easy to put the actual review result into the approval email
-    # message should the stream owners decide that is a good thing.
-    #filename = "%s-%s.txt" % (review.canonical_name(), review.rev)
-    #current_text = get_document_content(filename, os.path.join(settings.CONFLICT_REVIEW_PATH, filename), split=False, markup=False)
+    filename = "%s-%s.txt" % (review.canonical_name(), review.rev)
+    current_text = get_document_content(filename, os.path.join(settings.CONFLICT_REVIEW_PATH, filename), split=False, markup=False)
 
     conflictdoc = review.relateddocument_set.get(relationship__slug='conflrev').target.document
     if conflictdoc.stream_id=='ise':
@@ -290,7 +288,7 @@ def default_approval_text(review):
                                     conflictdoc = conflictdoc,
                                     conflictdoc_url = settings.IDTRACKER_BASE_URL+conflictdoc.get_absolute_url(),
                                     receiver=receiver,
-                                    #approved_review = current_text
+                                    approved_review = current_text
                                    )
                               )
 

ietf/templates/doc/conflict_review/approval_text.txt

@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ The IESG recommends that '{{ conflictdoc.title }}' {{ conflictdoc.file_tag|safe
 The IESG has no problem with the publication of '{{ conflictdoc.title }}' {{ conflictdoc.file_tag|safe }} as {{ conflictdoc|std_level_prompt_with_article }}.
 {% endif %}
 
+{{ approved_review }}
+
 The IESG would also like the {{receiver}} to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log.
 
 The IESG review is documented at: