Subclasses must call #delete_user_actions inside build_actions to support user deletion. The method adds a delete user bundle, which has a delete and a delete + block option. Every subclass is responsible for implementing these actions.
The previous commits removed reviewables leading to a bad user
experience. This commit updates the status, replaces actions with a
message and greys out the reviewable.
Recalculating a ReviewableFlaggedPost's score after rejecting or ignoring it sets the score as 0, which means that we can't find them after reviewing. They don't surpass the minimum priority threshold and are hidden.
Additionally, we only want to use agreed flags when calculating the different priority thresholds.
Adds a webhook to notify when a reviewable score is updated.
This is different from created or status changed as additional flags can
roll in and update the score without updating status. Useful for applications
looking to integrate in with Discourse's scores
This filter hides reviewables with a score lower than the "reviewable_low_priority_threshold" setting. We only use reviewables that already met this threshold to calculate the Medium and High priority filters.
* FEATURE: Review every post using the review queue.
If the `review_every_post` setting is enabled, posts created and edited by regular uses are sent to the review queue so staff can review them. We'll skip PMs and posts created or edited by TL4 or staff users.
Staff can choose to:
- Approve the post (nothing happens)
- Approve and restore the post (if deleted)
- Approve and unhide the post (if hidden)
- Reject and delete it
- Reject and keep deleted (if deleted)
- Reject and suspend the user
- Reject and silence the user
* Update config/locales/server.en.yml
Co-authored-by: Robin Ward <robin.ward@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Robin Ward <robin.ward@gmail.com>
The API now accepts an array called "ids" to select specific items. This parameter is not present on the UI.
Example usage: "yoursite.com/review.json?ids[]=1&ids[]=2"
Feature for `Must Approve Users` setup. When a user is rejected, a staff member can optionally set a reason for audit purposes. In addition, feedback email can be sent to the user.
Meta: https://meta.discourse.org/t/account-rejection-email/103112/8
* FIX: Store Reviewable's force_review as a boolean.
Using the `force_review` flag raises the score to hit the minimum visibility threshold. This strategy turned out to be ineffective on sites with a high number of flags, where these values could rapidly fluctuate.
This change adds a `force_review` column on the reviewables table and modifies the `Reviewable#list_for` method to show these items when passing the `status: :pending` option, even if the score is not high enough. ReviewableQueuedPosts and ReviewableUsers are always created using this option.
We were getting errors like this in Reviewables in some cases:
```
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid (PG::AmbiguousColumn: ERROR: column reference "category_id" is ambiguous
LINE 4: ...TRUE) OR (reviewable_by_group_id IN (NULL))) AND (category_i...
```
The problem that was making everything go boom is that plugins can add their own custom filters for Reviewables. If one is doing an INNER JOIN on topics, which has its own category_id column, we would get the above AmbiguousColumn error. The solution here is to just make all references to the reviewable columns in the list_for and viewable_by code prefixed by the table name e.g. reviewables.category_id.
The previous concurrency-safe implementation relied on catching an
index conflict and following through appropriately. Unfortunately
those conflicts were logged to Postgres and there is no easy way
to turn them off.
This solution approaches the problem differently. It should still
be safe under concurrency and not log errors.
Zeitwerk simplifies working with dependencies in dev and makes it easier reloading class chains.
We no longer need to use Rails "require_dependency" anywhere and instead can just use standard
Ruby patterns to require files.
This is a far reaching change and we expect some followups here.
Forums without previously calculated scores would return the same values
for low/medium/high sensitivity. Now those are scaled based on the
default value.
The default value has also been changed from 10.0 to 12.5 based on
observing data from live discourse forums.
If you click a (?) icon beside the reviewable status a pop up will
appear with expanded informatio that explains how the reviewable got its
score, and how it compares to system thresholds.
If a post is flagged after an action was already performed on it, it
will update the previous Reviable instance and not create a new one.
The notification logic was implemented in the :create callback which was
completely skipped in this case.
There are situations where depending on site settings, actions could be
taken due to flags (for example, hiding a post) but those actions were
not visibile in the review queue due to visibility settings.
This patch makes sure that the minimum score required for an action such
as hiding a post needs to meet the visibility for a moderator to see it.
* UX: Rename "Keep Post" to "Keep Post Hidden" when hidden
This is based on this feedback:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/category-group-review-moderation/116478/19
When a post is hidden this makes the operation much more clear.
* REFACTOR: Better support for aliases for actions
Allow calls on alias actions and delegate to the original one.
This is less code but also simplifies tests where the action might
be "agree_and_keep" or "agree_and_keep_hidden" which are the same.
This reduces chances of errors where consumers of strings mutate inputs
and reduces memory usage of the app.
Test suite passes now, but there may be some stuff left, so we will run
a few sites on a branch prior to merging
This is a feature that used to be present in discourse-assign but is
much easier to implement in core. It also allows a topic to be assigned
without it claiming for review and vice versa and allows it to work with
category group reviewers.
We found score hard to understand. It is still there behind the scenes
for sorting purposes, but it is no longer shown.
You can now filter by minimum priority (low, med, high) instead of
score.
