Feature/4 small issues

[EdoStorm96]

This PR fixes #350, #575 and #578.

• 350: This was the biggest one. I added an is_commission_review field to the Review model, so that there is a simple check to see if a review is a supervisor review, besides the stage. Some things to note:
  • Default is True, only get changed when creating a supervisor review.
  • I wrote a data migration, which worked well for me, but have a look at that.
  • I wrote some tests for this, which was a first for me. I guess this is fine? But I am open to suggestions.
• 575: Just make sure the supervisor's name, instead of solisID is displayed on the review detail page.

• 578: Added Chamber information to the PDF header. Right now, just using the acronyms, as this was requested by Desiree. It now looks like this, at the top of the page:

  'FEtC-H - _Looking at the elderlyrev (reference number 23-019-01, submitted by Justin Bieber) - LC'

  The code in the template is a bit ugly ... I was kindoff struggling with keeping the chamber name translatable, but IMO this is fine.

[EdoStorm96]

Ok, so I decided to also incorporate a fix for #491 here. I hope this PR is not getting too messy for you both ...

491: So this alters how the avg_understood field works. It is now nullable, the widget for it has changed to a radioselect button, and it can be either yes or no, but not be left blank. This field is now also displayed in the pdf & diff.

I did run into one issue here ... The AVGUnderstoodValidator function (the logic of which I updated in line with the field's new requirements) was seemingly not doing anything for me, so I tried removing it entirely. This seems to not be possible, when making migrations. So now it is just there, but not really doing anything? I created an error message in the form's clean method, which works fine, but could/should I remove the validator? Or is it best to keep it and get rid of my new error message? I did not really see the purpose of this validator ...

[tymees]

One last thing: you only added the is_committee_review variable. It would be nice if a app-wide pass was made to actually use it in QuerySets over the old annoying method

[EdoStorm96]

Ok, so I implemented the changes you both requested, some notes:

• I updated the Review.update_go() method as Michael suggested to close supervisor reviews. I now use this method on all past reviews in the data migration, to update their stage when relevant. See review migration 0013.
• So I did end up replacing field avg_understood with privacy_officer, as Ty suggested. This does indeed make more sense.
• To get rid of the AVGUnderstoodValidator I removed it and all references to it from the repo. However, this caused a problem, because it got referenced in proposal migration 0034. As suggested in the Django docs, I just placed this function in this migration (as an empty function) and now all seems to work fine. (Despite this solution looking shady to me ...)

[EdoStorm96]

All right, so I've implemented Ty's minor tweaks, but, more importantly, I realized that it should be is_committee_review and not is_commission_review. This is a typo that occurred when discussing the original issue (#350) and was then adopted in this discussion and also by me ;p I re-ran the migrations on my branch, so that there is no evidence of this. I think it should be all good now!