= CodeReviewPlugin Concepts =

== Basic idea ==
 * Whenever a changeset is displayed, review information is available:
  * Reviewer
  * Review result description
  * Review result state: ACCEPTED or REJECTED
 * When the user has the permission CODE_REVIEW, this information is editable
  * A button named "Review" is saving the information and setting Reviewer to the current user
 * When the user lacks the permission CODE_REVIEW, this information is read-only
 * Reviews are also available from "View Tickets", if you add a report on the table CODEREVIEW.
  * To make this easier, besides the changeset revision, the changeset author is also redundantly store in this table.

== Ideas ==
( If approved, turn them to tickets and mark them here accordingly. )

 * Send an email to the author, whenever a changeset is REJECTED.
 * (Somehow) give reviewers an overview on changesets not yet reviews.
  * Currently I accomplish this via the timeline.
'''Yoheeb added:'''
 * Allow selective creation and display of code review comments that are specific to a file in the changeset, maybe next to (view diffs) on changeset summary, add "Code review - ACCEPTED/REJECTED/NONE/ADD REVIEW (with proper permissions of course)" as a link to the full review.
 * Allow wiki formatting in code reviews, including inter-trac links. (file: xyz/abc.C according to !#123, this isn't the correct fix....see @line127-129 or something)
 * Configurable Workflow hooks on configurable Code review status (accept, reject...etc)?

Originally, I was going to create something similar to this, but you created a foundation that was better.  Some things I was going for, which I hope you will consider:
My design requirements were (optional items in italics):
 1 - Allow a code review on a changeset[[BR]]
 2 - save the code review results in a "permanent" location (I was going to use subversion repo properties)[[BR]]
 3 - ability to view/print code reviews for:
   A: individual changeset[[BR]]
   B: Range of Changeset (including all)
 ''4 - configurable pass/fail, etc states''[[BR]] 
 5 - Access to add/view code reviews for entire changeset from changeset view
   ''A: with wiki markup support and/or links to individual files under review''
 6 - Access to add/view code reviews for the "currently" viewed file from a changeset diff view[[BR]]
 7 - code review permission to create/edit a review[[BR]]
 ''8 - code review VIEW permission''[[BR]]
 9 - ability to see all (or individual) reviews when viewing a specific file/file+revision (suggest augmenting annotation feature)[[BR]]
 ''10 - workflow triggers.''

with that:
My original idea was to save the reviews to the subversion changeset via properties with some simple formatting, and:
 * Also suggest a link to code review, if present, when a list if files is presented for large changesets (right next to "view diffs")
 * Modify the Annotation view template to parse the special properties, and pull out reviews specific to the current file/selected revision and
  * Show each review by author (allow multiple reviewers)
  * only show the review outcome (accepted, rejected, ...make this configurable?) as a link to the full review text as a wiki page/section of a page (maybe 1 page per changeset, 1 heading section per file?)
   * This allows a code review summary to just be a print of a wiki page, or, a print of all the sub page via, say, Wiki-Print
 * changeset string format could be something as simple as CR:REVNUM:File:Author:result as the property name, then the comments.
   * then on the annotation hover, parsed into: (in pseudo code, sorry, not sure how else to convey the idea)
{{{
for all properties on changeset REVNUM:
 split on :
 if [0] ==CR and [1] ==$REVNUM:
   if [3] == CURRENT_FILE_SHOWN:
     insert "Code review by " +Author +" - " + CreateLinkToFullReview(CR:REVNUM:File:Author:result) into annotation pop-up
   else:
     remove it from the __displayed__ list of properties in annotation pop-up!
 else:
   allow normal processing
}}}

Now I realize this is tied to subversion, but could some of these ideas be incorporated into this DB based implementation.
Also, I apologize for the verboseness of this, not sure what the best way to convey these concepts in compact form.