resolution_fixed type_defect | by rjsparks@nostrum.com
The code at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietfdb/browser/tags/7.32.0/ietf/group/views.py#L971 does several wrong things.
-
It doesn't restrict what it does to the group being operated on - as it sits, being removed from one review team will case assignments in all other review teams to be rejected (or marked no-response).
-
It doesn't handle the case where someone had two 'reviewer' roles for the same group, but with different email addresses (such things existing is a bug in itself, but it happened in production). It should check that the person attached to a removed role doesn't have some other reviewer role before operating on assignments.
-
It may have a bug in the codepath that leads to rejection vs no-response - some of Dan Romascanu's assignments that were automatically rejected were not yet overdue.
rejection vs no-response probably needs to be rethought anyhow.
Issue migrated from trac:3320 at 2022-03-04 08:44:23 +0000
resolution_fixedtype_defect| by rjsparks@nostrum.comThe code at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietfdb/browser/tags/7.32.0/ietf/group/views.py#L971 does several wrong things.
It doesn't restrict what it does to the group being operated on - as it sits, being removed from one review team will case assignments in all other review teams to be rejected (or marked no-response).
It doesn't handle the case where someone had two 'reviewer' roles for the same group, but with different email addresses (such things existing is a bug in itself, but it happened in production). It should check that the person attached to a removed role doesn't have some other reviewer role before operating on assignments.
It may have a bug in the codepath that leads to rejection vs no-response - some of Dan Romascanu's assignments that were automatically rejected were not yet overdue.
rejection vs no-response probably needs to be rethought anyhow.
Issue migrated from trac:3320 at 2022-03-04 08:44:23 +0000