362637 - provide a mode where users commenting on bugs/attachments with a pending request are strongly encouraged to grant/reject

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, enhancement, P5)

Description

[timeless]

currently it's possible to touch a bug or attachment while there's a relevant request pending against you, without actually granting or rejecting it.

while i don't believe experienced users have a problem with this, and while i don't want to prevent experts from avoiding granting or rejecting requests, i think we might want to investigate making it easier for inexperienced users to know what to do when they face a request

bug 136107 comment 19

we can either do this by
<implementation proposal A>

replacing [ Commit ] with:

[ Grant {flag} ] [ Reject {flag} ] [ Commit ignoring {flag} ]

or by
<implementation proposal B>
including help text which is tied to a user preference.

the preference would be something like:

user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag (int)

defaults:
user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag 0
user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag_bonus_per_group 5
user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag_threshold 10

rules:
1. if the value of user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag is greater than or equal to user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag_threshold, don't show the help text.
2. if user_help_text_seen_grant_reject_flag is not -1, then each time the user grants/rejects a request the number is incremented (up to 2*threshold)

the user will be able to manually set the number in prefs.

the logic for the bonus per group is that people in canconfirm+editbugs get score 10 and don't see the hint.

Comment 1

[Tuukka Tolvanen (sp3000)]

> <implementation proposal A>
> [ Grant {flag} ] [ Reject {flag} ] [ Commit ignoring {flag} ]

doesn't work for multiple requests

> <implementation proposal B>
> including help text which is tied to a user preference.

user could end up relying on the message for detecting requests, but the message eventually stops showing up; canconfirm+editbugs => request experience may not be valid; different ui for different people without explicit per-user configuration complicates remote support


<implementation proposal C>
a variation on A that supports concurrent requests

( ) leave-as-new ... reassign
| you have been asked to review the following requests:
| review: _text_decoration_by_children_ (*) no action ( ) grant ( ) reject
| super-mario: _patch_v9_               (*) no action ( ) grant ( ) reject
[Commit]


<implementation proposal D>
a variation on B that should be small enough to not need configuration

( ) leave-as-new ... reassign
ATTENTION: You have _<n>_requests_ pending on this bug. (_help_)
[Commit]

where _<n>_requests_ can just link to #attachment_table (because nagging about something and not linking toward it would be mean), and _help_ displays longer help text.

Comment 2

[Tuukka Tolvanen (sp3000)]

> ATTENTION: You have _<n>_requests_ pending on this bug. (_help_)

ok, yeah, ATTENTION is too annoying to fly really, strike that part :) but that's just details.

Comment 3

[Frédéric Buclin]

I don't want all this logic for such a minor benefit. Marking as WONTFIX as the attachments and flags module owner.