search

readthedocs / ext-theme

Read the Docs drop in replacement site templates
2 stars 2 forks source link

Invited pending maintainers do not appear #352

Closed stevepiercy closed 4 months ago

stevepiercy commented 4 months ago

See related readthedocs/ext-theme#353

Details

When I use the standard Dashboard version at:

https://readthedocs.org/dashboard/volto/users/

...then I am able to see pending maintainers to whom I have sent an invitation but have not yet accepted.

These invitees do not appear in the RTD Beta Dashboard at:

https://beta.readthedocs.org/dashboard/volto/edit/

Expected Result

Invited pending maintainers should appear in the Beta Dashboard.

Actual Result

Invited pending maintainers do not appear in the Beta Dashboard.

agjohnson commented 4 months ago

Odd, not sure why this would be the case as pending invites do show in the maintainers list normally:

image

stevepiercy commented 4 months ago

Pending invitations for maintainers now show up in the Beta Dashboard.

Was there a recent release?

Is there a delay between adding a maintainer in the original dashboard (due to issue #353) and it showing up in the Beta dashboard?

agjohnson commented 4 months ago

Odd. There should not be a delay, no. I just tested this and was able to invite a member by username to a project and the invite showed immediately on both dashboards. Same for revoking, it was all instantaneous.

We release weekly, but there haven't been any changes to this listing or the modeling for it in a while.

stevepiercy commented 4 months ago

OK, I'll close this as can't reproduce. Thanks for checking.

stevepiercy commented 4 months ago

Ah, shoot, GitHub's UI fooled me and put it on the Roadmap. I'll try to undo that.

stevepiercy commented 4 months ago

Bah, I guess I can't undo that mistake entirely. Sorry for messing up your Roadmap stats.

agjohnson commented 4 months ago

Hah, no worries :smile: I still can't come up with a good reason why this would have happened, so if you notice it again, feel free to reopen this. Perhaps we're missing something in testing this