This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 3, 2024. It is now read-only.
Improve approvals review granularity #91
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fix log messages for subconditions which have no users
so that the user can be asked individually
sergejparity
previously approved these changes
Apr 26, 2022
fix bug regarding mutation of userInfo
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Review requests currently don't work optimally, as evidenced by paritytech/polkadot#5374 (comment) where the action requested more review from locks-review even though the criterion for that team had already been fulfilled.
This PR attempts to fix that case by having better granularity per-subcondition and improving the way that subconditions are processed internally.
Despite the fairly large internal rework in the core logic, the snapshots changed as expected (and minorly) which is to me a good sign of no regressions being introduced by this PR.