-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reference tagging status view #756
Conversation
@shapiromatron I updated the wording from "tag history" to "tag state", since I believe that is more indicative of what's being shown; I'm open to other suggestions of wording, since it would just be an easy search and replace. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice job! Some minor tweaks requested to the language for state vs history; we can discuss in person if you'd like.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good! I made two minor, substantive changes: a) renamed "tag state" to "tag status", and b) for the tag status page, we should all user_tags, regardless of if they've been resolved or not. It's just available for the historical record.
Fleshed out the view for tag status (previously referred to as tag history). This view shows consensus tags and all user tags applied to a reference, including those which were resolved. Parts of the conflict resolution template was repurposed to also serve this purpose, so there are also slight style changes on the conflict resolution page.
Conflict resolution view (slight changes)
Tag state view
Other changes:
Version
models associated with the Reference/ReferenceUserTagRevision
; I believe this is the solution that reversion expects since this actually allows you to revert to the previous tagging state, but if we wanted a more lightweight approach maybe an Assessment.Log would be more appropriate (future PR)