Provide fallback messaging when QA data missing

Provide fallback messaging when QA data missing

- There are two cases of missing QA data
  - No qa data currently available for a reviewed charm.
  - The charm is not reviewed and will not have QA data.
- Provide a unique message for both cases and do not display the charm as
having poor/no quality to it.
- Add tests that we flip the right messages in each case.
- Add the charm data to the qa information so we can toggle on is_approved.

https://code.launchpad.net/~rharding/juju-gui/quality-control/+merge/167578

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

[rharding, 2013-06-05 16:01:35]

Please take a look.

[curtis, 2013-06-05 17:50:01]

Hi Rick. Thank you for doing the right thing and working on long term solution
for the case. I propose some alternate text. Do you think it helps?

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
File app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars:29: <p><strong>This charm
does not currently have a Quality Rating</strong></p>
I think this sentence can be direct. The secondary sentences can qualify the
case. I think this text is easier to understand
    This charm is not rated.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars:33: Quality reviews are in
progress and have not yet been submitted for this charm.
I think the passive voice undermines our sense of priority. This is an awkward
start-up case were ratings are missing. Maybe this phrasing is conveys the
situation we expect all promulgated charms to be in:
    This charm is queued for review. It will be rated soon.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/test/test_browser_charm_detail...
File test/test_browser_charm_details.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/test/test_browser_charm_detail...
test/test_browser_charm_details.js:437:
foundNodes.pop().get('text').search('does not currently'),
Would ids on the nodes make the tests more durable? Since I proposed a text
change, I think this and the subsequent test will fail. Ids like
'with-qa-rating' and 'without-qa-rating' allow us to revise the text without
adjusting the test to verify the section was rendered.

[rharding, 2013-06-05 18:37:08]

On 2013/06/05 17:50:01, curtis wrote:
> Hi Rick. Thank you for doing the right thing and working on long term solution
> for the case. I propose some alternate text. Do you think it helps?
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
> File app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
> app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars:29: <p><strong>This charm
> does not currently have a Quality Rating</strong></p>
> I think this sentence can be direct. The secondary sentences can qualify the
> case. I think this text is easier to understand
>     This charm is not rated.

Thanks, I kept the term "Quality Rating" because I didn't want to confuse with
some sort of 5 star rating type messaging in there.

> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
> app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars:33: Quality reviews are in
> progress and have not yet been submitted for this charm.
> I think the passive voice undermines our sense of priority. This is an awkward
> start-up case were ratings are missing. Maybe this phrasing is conveys the
> situation we expect all promulgated charms to be in:
>     This charm is queued for review. It will be rated soon.

Updated.

> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/test/test_browser_charm_detail...
> File test/test_browser_charm_details.js (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/test/test_browser_charm_detail...
> test/test_browser_charm_details.js:437:
> foundNodes.pop().get('text').search('does not currently'),
> Would ids on the nodes make the tests more durable? Since I proposed a text
> change, I think this and the subsequent test will fail. Ids like
> 'with-qa-rating' and 'without-qa-rating' allow us to revise the text without
> adjusting the test to verify the section was rendered.

Sure, updated in a patch uploading now.

[gary.poster, 2013-06-05 18:39:50]

LGTM with suggested changes from Curtis, but please obtain approval from Luca or
Alejandra before landing.  Perhaps you could simply send screen shots of the two
scenarios to them and ask for input, mentioning that we can revise later but
would like to land an incremental change now.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
File app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars:29: <p><strong>This charm
does not currently have a Quality Rating</strong></p>
On 2013/06/05 17:50:01, curtis wrote:
> I think this sentence can be direct. The secondary sentences can qualify the
> case. I think this text is easier to understand
>     This charm is not rated.

+1

https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044/diff/1/app/subapps/browser/templates/...
app/subapps/browser/templates/browser_qa.handlebars:33: Quality reviews are in
progress and have not yet been submitted for this charm.
On 2013/06/05 17:50:01, curtis wrote:
> I think the passive voice undermines our sense of priority. This is an awkward
> start-up case were ratings are missing. Maybe this phrasing is conveys the
> situation we expect all promulgated charms to be in:
>     This charm is queued for review. It will be rated soon.

I think the second sentence is sufficient, actually: "It will be rated soon."

[rharding, 2013-06-05 18:40:05]

Please take a look.

[curtis, 2013-06-05 18:53:13]

LGTM, thanks.

[rharding, 2013-06-07 16:06:14]

*** Submitted:

Provide fallback messaging when QA data missing

- There are two cases of missing QA data
  - No qa data currently available for a reviewed charm.
  - The charm is not reviewed and will not have QA data.
- Provide a unique message for both cases and do not display the charm as
having poor/no quality to it.
- Add tests that we flip the right messages in each case.
- Add the charm data to the qa information so we can toggle on is_approved.

R=curtis, gary.poster
CC=
https://codereview.appspot.com/10049044