Skip to content
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

Build judge queues from config #11700

Closed
1 of 2 tasks
lowellrex opened this issue Aug 7, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #14396
Closed
1 of 2 tasks

Build judge queues from config #11700

lowellrex opened this issue Aug 7, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #14396

Comments

@lowellrex
Copy link
Contributor

lowellrex commented Aug 7, 2019

In order to complete the move to defining judge queues on the back-end we should use the same front-end arrangement that we used to satisfy the similar ticket for generic individual queues (#11698). This may not be as straightforward as generic queues since a fair amount of front-end Queue code relies on the user's role and we may need to untangle that code in order to complete this ticket.

🚫 Blocked by

Acceptance criteria

@lowellrex
Copy link
Contributor Author

What is this graph?

      1 | 
      2 | ||||
      3 | ||||||
      5 | ||
      8 | 

#11698 blocks this because one of this series of tickets has to come first and that one looks like the simplest case.

Judge queues are different than attorney and generic task table views because they don't have tabs and they do have dropdown menus.

Estimating at 3. Possible 2 because the appearance of a single tab might already be handled on the front-end so the major complication would be the dropdown for judges and that might be easy enough to attack. Possible 5 because differences between different queues might actually not be that similar and unwrapping the drift between files that should be similar might be a nightmare.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants