add request review from specific reviewers feature in pull request

[a1012112796]

add a way to notify specific reviewers to review like github , by add or delet a special type
review . The acton is is similar to Assign , so many code reuse the function and items of
Assignee, but the meaning and result is different.

The Permission style is is similar to github, that only writer can add a review request from Reviewers,
but the poster can recall and remove a review request after a reviwer has revied even if he don't have
Write Premission. only manager , the poster and reviewer of a request review can remove it.

The reviewers can be requested to review contain all readers for private repo , for public, contain
all writers and watchers.

The offical Review Request will block merge if Reject can block it.

an other change: add ui otify for Assignees.

screenshots:

---

---

---

[a1012112796]

@lafriks Thanks for your checking!

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #10756 into master will decrease coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is 20.86%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10756      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   43.62%   43.47%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         597      597              
  Lines       83923    84252     +329     
==========================================
+ Hits        36614    36625      +11     
- Misses      42797    43113     +316     
- Partials     4512     4514       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
models/branches.go	41.88% <0.00%> (ø)
models/issue_comment.go	46.68% <ø> (ø)
modules/notification/base/null.go	66.66% <0.00%> (-2.09%)	⬇️
modules/notification/mail/mail.go	27.02% <0.00%> (-1.96%)	⬇️
modules/notification/notification.go	76.97% <0.00%> (-2.29%)	⬇️
routers/user/home.go	58.08% <0.00%> (-0.20%)	⬇️
services/issue/assignee.go	34.88% <0.00%> (-16.85%)	⬇️
models/review.go	32.37% <4.27%> (-10.38%)	⬇️
routers/repo/issue.go	35.76% <11.11%> (-1.96%)	⬇️
modules/notification/ui/ui.go	64.10% <48.00%> (-6.27%)	⬇️
... and 19 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ca33a95...543425f. Read the comment docs.

[guillep2k]

OK, updating my list, I still think the reviewers should be able to dismiss themselves, regardless of what permissions they have.

Also, people with write permissions should not be able to dismiss any review (I as a maintainer am not allowed to dismiss other maintainer's review here in Github). Admins/owners should.

Having said that, Gitea does have its own personality, so some tasks are not entirely resolved the same way as Github. For example, reviewer whitelists are handled separately from PR write access, so we must be careful on what we can copy and what we should reconsider.

[a1012112796]

@guillep2k hello, I have changed it follow your suggestions, about reviewers who can be requested to review, add all readers for private repo, but olny add all watchers and writers in repo , because , readers mean all user in the platform for a public repo, but It's not necessary, Because people who don't watch it won't like to make a review for this repo.

[guillep2k]

I'm not sure using the watchers list is a good idea. A public repository's branch could have a very limited number of reviewers, and they may or may not be watching the repo. Or repositories like Gitea may have hundreds of watchers (currently 460). Maybe we could use the "watchers" function for branches that are not protected (or have no reviewer restrictions) but use the list of official/whitelisted reviewers when the target branch has one.

By the way, a public repository whose owner is a hidden organization (visible: false) should be considered like a private repository.

[a1012112796]

@guillep2k Hello, I'm sorry , but I can't fully agree with you, first this list only show who can be requested to review not help users to choose, And in gitea any user who can read can make a review. but for the public repo, which will become a problem , Because if not have some additional limit, which will mean all users in the platform should in this list, but it's not necessary. So only add offical users (which can found in accesses table) and watchers, but I really forget the whitelisted reviewers for protect branches, they should alse be check and add to this list. and also because this list may become very big I add a filter box which is provided by "Semantic UI" , and may be it should become a search because load many users may cost too much time, but now I have no idea about how to do it . that's my think. thanks

[guillep2k]

As long as the explicitly whitelisted users or groups for the target branch are included in the list, I'm OK with that (I don't mean when "everyone" is allowed).

[a1012112796]

@guillep2k Hello, after carefully check , I think It's not necessary to load whitelisted users or groups
because thy all can be found in accesses table, which has been load firstly. so It's not necessary to load them again. you can see these codes:

gitea/routers/repo/setting_protected_branch.go

Lines 120 to 125 in 209045f

	users, err := c.Repo.Repository.GetReaders()
	if err != nil {
	c.ServerError("Repo.Repository.GetReaders", err)
	return
	}
	c.Data["Users"] = users

they just use users who can found in accesses table.

and all users in the teams of the own organization can be found in by this way also.

So , that means after these code. all users who can be choose into whitelisted users or the groups has been loaded by these codes:
https://github.com/a1012112796/gitea/blob/69e40d604fe77fc3e5460a9c63ee962ead7eb33a/models/repo.go#L665-L674
so it's not necessay to load again. Do you think it's right ,thanks.

[guillep2k]

Wow, this was a long journey. Great job!!

[lunny]

Please resolve the conflicts.

[a1012112796]

Hello, I have resolved the conflicts and do some ui changes, please review , Thanks.
@lunny @guillep2k @zeripath ....

[lafriks]

Great work, looks good now ;)

[lafriks]

Make lgtm work

[lunny]

It's better to add the feature in comparsion doc.