ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Jamie Strandboge <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/17/2014 09:31 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
...

>> All of this sounds pretty reasonable, however I'm now somewhat confused. I think
>> we're talking about different things here. So to disambiguate,
>>
>> 1. the process is to override errors so to not automatically reject, but force a
>> manual review, and *not* to override errors to allow an automatic approval, right?
> 
> What you have implemented thus far is perfect. What Daniel is wanting to do is
> further reduce the number of manual reviews for apps where the app was already
> manually reviewed, so it doesn't have to be next time. What I have discussed
> allows for the overrides to allow warnings and errors that would normally prompt
> a manual review to be ignored. I also discussed that we could have logic around
> this so that sometimes errors could get a pass, but other times not and if not,
> there is extra information that is available for display to the reviewer.
> 
I reread your previous email and see where the confusion may lie. The click
reviewers team is used to "manually reviewing" any apps that have warnings
and/or errors. This "manual review" does typically include an in depth review.
Meanwhile, the click-reviewers-tools outputs errors and warnings and a subset of
those errors have the 'MANUAL REVIEW' string (and now the '"manual_review":
True' json) which indicates that the reviewer should perform an in depth review
of the app. As such, the term "manual review" is a bit overloaded in this
conversation.

Daniel is hoping to have an override mechanism for any errors and warnings so
that your server logic becomes:

1. If there are non-overridden errors in the automated review results and none
   of them are marked as requiring manual review, the app is automatically
   rejected
2. If there are non-overridden errors in the automated review results and some
   of them are marked as requiring manual review, the app is left in the review
   queue waiting for a reviewer to pick it up and start a review (just like it
   is now)
3. If there are errors and warnings in the automated review results and all of
   them are overridden, the app is automatically approved
4. If there are no errors and no warnings in the automated review results, the
   app is automatically approved.

Note-- you said only 'errors' in portions of your email (which is captured
above) which got me thinking: what does the server do when an app has no errors
but there are warnings?


-- 
Jamie Strandboge                 http://www.ubuntu.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature