Add the possibility to draft a risk acceptance #1285
Conversation
This is not finished yet, some little things remain to be done.
|
I reopen this to be reviewed, there still are the issues with CodeFactor @Mohamed-Hacene |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces comprehensive changes across multiple files to enhance the risk acceptance workflow. The modifications span from backend logic in Django views and models to frontend components and localization files. Key updates include new actions for submitting and drafting risk acceptances, changes to state management, updates to translation keys, and adjustments to form validation to allow optional approvers. The changes aim to provide more flexible and precise control over the risk acceptance process. Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Frontend
participant Backend
participant Approver
User->>Frontend: Create Risk Acceptance
Frontend->>Backend: Save as Draft
Backend-->>Frontend: Draft Saved
User->>Frontend: Submit Risk Acceptance
alt Approver Exists
Frontend->>Backend: Submit for Validation
Backend->>Approver: Notify for Review
Approver->>Backend: Review Risk Acceptance
Backend-->>Frontend: Update Status
else No Approver
Frontend-->>User: Show Error
end
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🔭 Outside diff range comments (2)
backend/core/models.py (2)
Line range hint
3418-3486: Add validation for expiry date.The
expiry_datefield is critical for tracking the validity of risk acceptances, but it's currently nullable. Consider adding validation to ensure an expiry date is always set when transitioning to the "accepted" state.Add validation in the
set_statemethod:def set_state(self, state): self.state = state if state == "accepted": + if not self.expiry_date: + raise ValidationError(_("Expiry date is required for risk acceptance")) self.accepted_at = datetime.now() # iterate over the risk scenarios to set their treatment to accepted for scenario in self.risk_scenarios.all():
Line range hint
3469-3486: Add state transition validation.The
set_statemethod allows any state transition without validation. This could lead to invalid state changes like transitioning from "rejected" to "submitted".Add state transition validation:
+ VALID_TRANSITIONS = { + "created": ["submitted"], + "submitted": ["accepted", "rejected"], + "accepted": ["revoked"], + "rejected": ["created"], + "revoked": ["created"], + } + def set_state(self, state): + if state not in self.VALID_TRANSITIONS.get(self.state, []): + raise ValidationError( + _("Invalid state transition from %(from_state)s to %(to_state)s") % + {"from_state": self.state, "to_state": state} + ) self.state = state if state == "accepted": self.accepted_at = datetime.now()
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
frontend/src/routes/(app)/(internal)/[model=urlmodel]/[id=uuid]/+page.server.ts (1)
179-184: Consider using different success messages for submit and draft actions.Both actions currently use
m.successfullyValidatedObject(). Consider using distinct messages to better reflect the specific action taken.Also applies to: 214-219
frontend/messages/it.json (1)
456-456: Fix typo in Italian translation.There's a typo in the message: "rotnare" should be "tornare" (in "non puoi rotnare indietro").
- "riskAcceptanceValidatedMessage": "L'accettazione di questo rischio è attualmente confermata. Puoi revocarla in qualsiasi momento, ma non puoi rotnare indietro. Si consiglia di duplicarla con una versione diversa se necessario.", + "riskAcceptanceValidatedMessage": "L'accettazione di questo rischio è attualmente confermata. Puoi revocarla in qualsiasi momento, ma non puoi tornare indietro. Si consiglia di duplicarla con una versione diversa se necessario.",backend/core/models.py (1)
Line range hint
3459-3462: Follow Django's permission naming convention.The custom permission name doesn't follow Django's convention of
<verb>_<model>. Also, the permission description could be more specific about the action.Update the permission definition:
class Meta: permissions = [ - ("approve_riskacceptance", "Can validate/rejected risk acceptances") + ("approve_risk_acceptance", "Can approve or reject risk acceptance requests") ].github/workflows/backend-linters.yaml (1)
Line range hint
39-42: Consider enabling ruff linter checks.The ruff linter check is commented out with a note about waiting for codebase cleanup. Consider creating a tracking issue for this cleanup to ensure it's not forgotten.
Would you like me to help create an issue to track the codebase cleanup task?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (22)
.github/workflows/backend-linters.yaml(1 hunks).pre-commit-config.yaml(1 hunks)backend/core/models.py(1 hunks)backend/core/views.py(2 hunks)frontend/messages/ar.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/cs.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/de.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/en.json(2 hunks)frontend/messages/es.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/fr.json(2 hunks)frontend/messages/hi.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/it.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/nl.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/pl.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/pt.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/ro.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/sv.json(1 hunks)frontend/messages/ur.json(1 hunks)frontend/src/lib/components/DetailView/DetailView.svelte(6 hunks)frontend/src/lib/components/Forms/ModelForm/RiskAcceptanceForm.svelte(1 hunks)frontend/src/lib/utils/schemas.ts(1 hunks)frontend/src/routes/(app)/(internal)/[model=urlmodel]/[id=uuid]/+page.server.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (23)
frontend/src/lib/components/Forms/ModelForm/RiskAcceptanceForm.svelte (1)
54-54: LGTM! The nullable property aligns with schema changes.The addition of
nullable={true}correctly enables the form to handle null values for the approver field, which is consistent with the updated schema definition.frontend/src/lib/components/DetailView/DetailView.svelte (2)
33-37: LGTM! Well-structured popup configuration.The popup settings are clearly defined with appropriate placement and event trigger.
382-419: Great user feedback implementation!The implementation provides excellent user feedback by:
- Disabling buttons when appropriate (no approver)
- Using popups to explain why buttons are disabled
- Clear visual indicators with icons
frontend/src/lib/utils/schemas.ts (1)
168-168: LGTM! Schema change properly supports the draft functionality.Making the
approverfield optional and nullable correctly enables the risk acceptance draft feature while maintaining type safety.backend/core/views.py (2)
1657-1666: LGTM! The submit action implementation looks good.The method correctly validates the presence of an approver before allowing submission and returns appropriate error responses.
1713-1725: LGTM! The perform_update validation looks good.The method correctly validates the approver's permissions on the risk acceptance's project folder.
frontend/messages/ar.json (1)
457-457: LGTM! The Arabic translation for risk acceptance validation message is accurate.The translation key
riskAcceptanceValidatingReviewMessagecorrectly conveys the meaning of the risk acceptance validation state.frontend/messages/ur.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! The key name change better reflects the validation state.The new key "riskAcceptanceValidatingReviewMessage" more precisely describes the validation state in the risk acceptance workflow, and the message content appropriately warns users about the irreversible nature of their decisions.
frontend/messages/cs.json (1)
454-454: LGTM! The key name change and translation are consistent.The new key "riskAcceptanceValidatingReviewMessage" matches the change in other localization files, and the Czech translation maintains semantic consistency with the risk acceptance workflow.
frontend/messages/hi.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Key renamed for better clarity.The key has been appropriately renamed from "riskAcceptanceReviewMessage" to "riskAcceptanceValidatingReviewMessage" to better reflect its specific purpose in the validation workflow, while preserving the existing translation.
frontend/messages/sv.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Consistent key renaming across localization files.The key has been consistently renamed from "riskAcceptanceReviewMessage" to "riskAcceptanceValidatingReviewMessage" to match the changes in other localization files, while preserving the existing translation.
frontend/messages/pl.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Good terminology standardization.The key rename from
riskAcceptanceReviewMessagetoriskAcceptanceValidatingReviewMessagebetter reflects the state of the risk acceptance process while maintaining consistent messaging across all supported languages.frontend/messages/ro.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Consistent with other language files.The key update matches the standardization applied across other language files while preserving the Romanian translation.
frontend/messages/pt.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Maintains translation consistency.The key change aligns with the standardization across other language files while keeping the Portuguese translation intact.
frontend/messages/nl.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Clear and accurate Dutch translation.The translation effectively communicates the validation process and irreversibility warning to Dutch users.
frontend/messages/es.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! Clear and accurate Spanish translation.The translation effectively communicates the validation process and irreversibility warning to Spanish users.
frontend/messages/de.json (1)
456-456: LGTM! German translation for risk acceptance validation message.The translation is accurate and consistent with the risk acceptance workflow.
frontend/messages/en.json (1)
149-149: LGTM! Complete set of English messages for the risk acceptance workflow.The new messages provide clear guidance through the risk acceptance process:
- Checking for approver before submission
- Informing about the submission to approver
- Guiding the approver during validation
This improves the user experience by making the workflow steps clearer.
Also applies to: 460-462
frontend/messages/fr.json (1)
460-460: LGTM! French translation for risk acceptance validation message.The translation is accurate and consistent with the risk acceptance workflow.
.pre-commit-config.yaml (2)
9-9: Verify ruff version compatibility and breaking changes.The version has been updated from v0.4.1 to v0.9.2, which is a significant version jump.
Let's verify the version and check for any breaking changes:
✅ Verification successful
yaml/,/```/'
--- yaml/,/```/' # Get release notes from main Ruff repository curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/astral-sh/ruff/releases/tags/v0.9.2 | jq -r '.body'
Version update to v0.9.2 is appropriate
The version has been verified to exist and is actually the latest release (January 16, 2025) of ruff-pre-commit.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify ruff version and check changelog for breaking changes # Check if the version exists curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit/tags | jq -r '.[].name' | grep -q "v0.9.2" && echo "Version exists" || echo "Version not found" # Get changelog entries between v0.4.1 and v0.9.2 curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/astral-sh/ruff/main/CHANGELOG.md | awk '/## \[0\.9\.2\]/,/## \[0\.4\.1\]/'Length of output: 263
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check latest version and its release date curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit/releases/latest | jq -r '"\(.tag_name) released on \(.published_at)"' # Get release notes for v0.9.2 curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit/releases/tags/v0.9.2 | jq -r '.body' # Check sample config from the repo curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit/main/README.md | awk '/Length of output: 449
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get example configuration from README curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit/main/README.md | awk '/Length of output: 116
Line range hint
11-14: Consider enabling the ruff linter.The ruff linter hook is commented out. Since we're running the formatter, it would be beneficial to also run the linter to catch potential issues early in development.
Let's check if there are any existing linting issues that might be blocking this:
✅ Verification successful
Enabling the ruff linter is safe and recommended
The project has a complete ruff configuration with well-selected rules, and the formatter is already working successfully. There are no technical blockers or conflicting tools that would prevent enabling the linter.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for linting issues in the backend code # Find and analyze Python files in the backend directory fd -e py . backend/ --exec ruff check {} || trueLength of output: 7647
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for ruff configuration and project dependencies echo "=== Checking for ruff configuration files ===" fd -e toml -e ini -H ruff fd pyproject.toml echo -e "\n=== Checking Python dependencies ===" fd "requirements.*\.txt$|pyproject\.toml$|setup\.py$" -x cat {} echo -e "\n=== Checking for other linting tools ===" fd "\.flake8$|\.pylintrc$|setup\.cfg$" -x cat {}Length of output: 2034
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check ruff configuration echo "=== Checking ruff configuration ===" cat ruff.toml echo -e "\n=== Checking pre-commit config ===" cat .pre-commit-config.yamlLength of output: 1110
.github/workflows/backend-linters.yaml (2)
34-34: LGTM! Version matches pre-commit config.The ruff version (0.9.2) is consistent with the version specified in
.pre-commit-config.yaml.
Line range hint
8-11: Verify Python and Ubuntu versions compatibility.The workflow uses Python 3.12 and Ubuntu 24.04, which are relatively new versions.
Let's verify the stability and availability of these versions:
| submit: async ({ request, fetch, params }) => { | ||
| const formData = await request.formData(); | ||
| const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() }); | ||
| const submitForm = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema)); | ||
|
|
||
| const urlmodel = submitForm.data.urlmodel; | ||
| const id = submitForm.data.id; | ||
| const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/submit/`; | ||
|
|
||
| if (!submitForm.valid) { | ||
| return fail(400, { form: submitForm }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = { | ||
| method: 'POST' | ||
| }; | ||
| const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions); | ||
| if (!res.ok) { | ||
| const response = await res.json(); | ||
| if (response.non_field_errors) { | ||
| setError(submitForm, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors); | ||
| } | ||
| return fail(400, { form: submitForm }); | ||
| } | ||
| const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!); | ||
| // TODO: reference object by name instead of id | ||
| return message( | ||
| submitForm, | ||
| m.successfullyValidatedObject({ | ||
| object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(), | ||
| id: id | ||
| }) | ||
| ); | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| draft: async ({ request, fetch, params }) => { | ||
| const formData = await request.formData(); | ||
| const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() }); | ||
| const draftForm = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema)); | ||
|
|
||
| const urlmodel = draftForm.data.urlmodel; | ||
| const id = draftForm.data.id; | ||
| const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/draft/`; | ||
|
|
||
| if (!draftForm.valid) { | ||
| return fail(400, { form: draftForm }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = { | ||
| method: 'POST' | ||
| }; | ||
| const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions); | ||
| if (!res.ok) { | ||
| const response = await res.json(); | ||
| if (response.non_field_errors) { | ||
| setError(draftForm, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors); | ||
| } | ||
| return fail(400, { form: draftForm }); | ||
| } | ||
| const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!); | ||
| // TODO: reference object by name instead of id | ||
| return message( | ||
| draftForm, | ||
| m.successfullyValidatedObject({ | ||
| object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(), | ||
| id: id | ||
| }) | ||
| ); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider extracting common action handling logic.
The submit and draft actions contain significant code duplication. Consider extracting the common pattern into a reusable function.
Here's a suggested refactor:
+const handleModelAction = async ({ request, fetch, params, action }) => {
+ const formData = await request.formData();
+ const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() });
+ const form = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema));
+
+ const urlmodel = form.data.urlmodel;
+ const id = form.data.id;
+ const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/${action}/`;
+
+ if (!form.valid) {
+ return fail(400, { form });
+ }
+
+ const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = {
+ method: 'POST'
+ };
+ const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions);
+ if (!res.ok) {
+ const response = await res.json();
+ if (response.non_field_errors) {
+ setError(form, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors);
+ }
+ return fail(400, { form });
+ }
+ const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!);
+ return message(
+ form,
+ m.successfullyValidatedObject({
+ object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(),
+ id: id
+ })
+ );
+};
export const actions: Actions = {
- submit: async ({ request, fetch, params }) => {
- const formData = await request.formData();
- const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() });
- const submitForm = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema));
-
- const urlmodel = submitForm.data.urlmodel;
- const id = submitForm.data.id;
- const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/submit/`;
-
- if (!submitForm.valid) {
- return fail(400, { form: submitForm });
- }
-
- const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = {
- method: 'POST'
- };
- const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions);
- if (!res.ok) {
- const response = await res.json();
- if (response.non_field_errors) {
- setError(submitForm, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors);
- }
- return fail(400, { form: submitForm });
- }
- const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!);
- return message(
- submitForm,
- m.successfullyValidatedObject({
- object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(),
- id: id
- })
- );
- },
+ submit: async (event) => handleModelAction({ ...event, action: 'submit' }),
+ draft: async (event) => handleModelAction({ ...event, action: 'draft' }),
- draft: async ({ request, fetch, params }) => {
- const formData = await request.formData();
- const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() });
- const draftForm = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema));
-
- const urlmodel = draftForm.data.urlmodel;
- const id = draftForm.data.id;
- const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/draft/`;
-
- if (!draftForm.valid) {
- return fail(400, { form: draftForm });
- }
-
- const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = {
- method: 'POST'
- };
- const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions);
- if (!res.ok) {
- const response = await res.json();
- if (response.non_field_errors) {
- setError(draftForm, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors);
- }
- return fail(400, { form: draftForm });
- }
- const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!);
- return message(
- draftForm,
- m.successfullyValidatedObject({
- object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(),
- id: id
- })
- );
- },📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| submit: async ({ request, fetch, params }) => { | |
| const formData = await request.formData(); | |
| const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() }); | |
| const submitForm = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema)); | |
| const urlmodel = submitForm.data.urlmodel; | |
| const id = submitForm.data.id; | |
| const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/submit/`; | |
| if (!submitForm.valid) { | |
| return fail(400, { form: submitForm }); | |
| } | |
| const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = { | |
| method: 'POST' | |
| }; | |
| const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions); | |
| if (!res.ok) { | |
| const response = await res.json(); | |
| if (response.non_field_errors) { | |
| setError(submitForm, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors); | |
| } | |
| return fail(400, { form: submitForm }); | |
| } | |
| const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!); | |
| // TODO: reference object by name instead of id | |
| return message( | |
| submitForm, | |
| m.successfullyValidatedObject({ | |
| object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(), | |
| id: id | |
| }) | |
| ); | |
| }, | |
| draft: async ({ request, fetch, params }) => { | |
| const formData = await request.formData(); | |
| const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() }); | |
| const draftForm = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema)); | |
| const urlmodel = draftForm.data.urlmodel; | |
| const id = draftForm.data.id; | |
| const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/draft/`; | |
| if (!draftForm.valid) { | |
| return fail(400, { form: draftForm }); | |
| } | |
| const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = { | |
| method: 'POST' | |
| }; | |
| const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions); | |
| if (!res.ok) { | |
| const response = await res.json(); | |
| if (response.non_field_errors) { | |
| setError(draftForm, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors); | |
| } | |
| return fail(400, { form: draftForm }); | |
| } | |
| const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!); | |
| // TODO: reference object by name instead of id | |
| return message( | |
| draftForm, | |
| m.successfullyValidatedObject({ | |
| object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(), | |
| id: id | |
| }) | |
| ); | |
| }, | |
| const handleModelAction = async ({ request, fetch, params, action }) => { | |
| const formData = await request.formData(); | |
| const schema = z.object({ urlmodel: z.string(), id: z.string().uuid() }); | |
| const form = await superValidate(formData, zod(schema)); | |
| const urlmodel = form.data.urlmodel; | |
| const id = form.data.id; | |
| const endpoint = `${BASE_API_URL}/${urlmodel}/${id}/${action}/`; | |
| if (!form.valid) { | |
| return fail(400, { form }); | |
| } | |
| const requestInitOptions: RequestInit = { | |
| method: 'POST' | |
| }; | |
| const res = await fetch(endpoint, requestInitOptions); | |
| if (!res.ok) { | |
| const response = await res.json(); | |
| if (response.non_field_errors) { | |
| setError(form, 'non_field_errors', response.non_field_errors); | |
| } | |
| return fail(400, { form }); | |
| } | |
| const model: string = urlParamModelVerboseName(params.model!); | |
| return message( | |
| form, | |
| m.successfullyValidatedObject({ | |
| object: safeTranslate(model).toLowerCase(), | |
| id: id | |
| }) | |
| ); | |
| }; | |
| export const actions: Actions = { | |
| submit: async (event) => handleModelAction({ ...event, action: 'submit' }), | |
| draft: async (event) => handleModelAction({ ...event, action: 'draft' }), | |
| }; |
| # This set back risk acceptance to "Created" | ||
| @action(detail=True, methods=["post"], name="Draft risk acceptance") | ||
| def draft(self, request, pk): | ||
| self.get_object().set_state("created") | ||
| return Response({"results": "state updated to submitted"}) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix the success message in the draft action.
The success message incorrectly states "state updated to submitted" when it should be "state updated to created".
Apply this diff to fix the message:
- return Response({"results": "state updated to submitted"})
+ return Response({"results": "state updated to created"})📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| # This set back risk acceptance to "Created" | |
| @action(detail=True, methods=["post"], name="Draft risk acceptance") | |
| def draft(self, request, pk): | |
| self.get_object().set_state("created") | |
| return Response({"results": "state updated to submitted"}) | |
| # This set back risk acceptance to "Created" | |
| @action(detail=True, methods=["post"], name="Draft risk acceptance") | |
| def draft(self, request, pk): | |
| self.get_object().set_state("created") | |
| return Response({"results": "state updated to created"}) | |
| @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ | |||
| "acceptedAt": "Accepté le", | |||
| "rejectedAt": "Rejeté le", | |||
| "revokedAt": "Révoqué le", | |||
| "created": "Créé", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add missing translations for new English messages.
The following messages are present in English but missing in German and French:
"created": "Created""riskAcceptanceSubmittingReviewMessage": "This will be sent to the approver for validation.""riskAcceptanceMissingApproverMessage": "Approver required before submitting."
Please add the corresponding translations to maintain consistency across all language files.
Also applies to: 460-462
| ("created", "Created"), | ||
| ("submitted", "Submitted"), | ||
| ("accepted", "Accepted"), | ||
| ("rejected", "Rejected"), | ||
| ("revoked", "Revoked"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Restore internationalization support for acceptance states.
The changes remove translation support for acceptance state choices by replacing gettext_lazy wrapped strings with plain strings. This will prevent the UI from displaying these states in the user's selected language.
Apply this diff to restore internationalization:
- ("created", "Created"),
- ("submitted", "Submitted"),
- ("accepted", "Accepted"),
- ("rejected", "Rejected"),
- ("revoked", "Revoked"),
+ ("created", _("Created")),
+ ("submitted", _("Submitted")),
+ ("accepted", _("Accepted")),
+ ("rejected", _("Rejected")),
+ ("revoked", _("Revoked")),Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Improvements
Backend Changes
Frontend Changes