Fix: Resubmitting Rejected Workshops Without Changes

Introduction

Hey guys! Today, we're diving into a critical bug that affects the workflow of service providers and moderators within our system. Specifically, we're addressing an issue where a service provider can resubmit a rejected workshop for moderation without making any actual changes. This can lead to unnecessary back-and-forth and inefficiencies in the moderation process. So, let's break down the problem, the steps to reproduce it, and the expected solution to ensure a smoother experience for everyone involved. Understanding and resolving such issues is crucial for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of our platform. The ability for service providers to resubmit rejected workshops without modifications circumvents the intended moderation process, potentially leading to the propagation of substandard or non-compliant content. This not only impacts the workload of moderators but also the overall quality of workshops available to users. By addressing this bug, we enhance the user experience, streamline the moderation workflow, and uphold the standards of content quality within the platform. Let's get started and ensure our platform works as intended.

Summary

The core issue is that a service provider can bypass the intended workflow by resending a workshop for moderation even after it has been rejected by a moderator, and without implementing any of the requested changes. This is not the desired behavior, and it's what we're aiming to fix.

Environment

• Operating System: Windows 10
• Browser: Google Chrome
• Reproducibility: Always
• Build: Commit 9066bc3

Steps to Reproduce

To better understand and address this issue, here’s a step-by-step guide to reproduce the bug. Reproducing the issue consistently is vital for confirming the bug and validating the effectiveness of the fix.

1. Create a New Workshop: Log in as a service provider and create a new workshop, or open an existing one that you wish to modify. This initial step sets the stage for the subsequent actions.
2. Make Changes: Introduce some changes to the workshop content. This could involve altering the description, schedule, or any other relevant details. Making changes ensures the workshop is in a state that requires moderation.
3. Submit for Moderation: Send the workshop for moderation. This action flags the workshop for review by a moderator, triggering the moderation process.
4. Log in as Moderator: Switch to a moderator account and access the workshop submitted by the service provider. This step places you in the role of the moderator who will be reviewing the content.
5. Reject the Workshop: Reject the workshop with a comment explaining the reasons for rejection. Crucially, do not make any changes to the workshop content yourself. This simulates a scenario where the moderator finds the workshop unacceptable as is.
6. Log Back in as Service Provider: Revert to the service provider account and access the rejected workshop. This brings you back to the perspective of the user who needs to address the rejection.
7. Resubmit Without Changes: Resend the same workshop for moderation without implementing any of the changes requested by the moderator. This is the critical step that exposes the bug.

Actual Result

The actual result is that the workshop is successfully sent to moderation again without any changes, even though it was previously rejected. This is incorrect behavior, as the system should prompt the service provider to make the necessary adjustments before resubmitting.

Expected Result

The expected result is that the system should prevent resubmitting the workshop for moderation until the service provider makes the required changes after a rejection. A message or prompt should inform the service provider about the need to address the moderator's feedback before resubmission.

Root Cause Analysis

The root cause of this bug lies in the lack of proper validation within the system. Specifically, there is no check to ensure that a service provider has made changes to a workshop after it has been rejected by a moderator. This oversight allows the service provider to resubmit the workshop without addressing the issues identified by the moderator, leading to a redundant and inefficient moderation process. The absence of this validation undermines the intended workflow, where service providers are expected to revise their workshops based on feedback before resubmitting them for approval. To rectify this, the system needs to implement a mechanism that tracks whether changes have been made since the last rejection and prevents resubmission until such changes are detected.

Proposed Solution

To address this issue, we propose implementing a validation check on the backend that verifies whether any changes have been made to the workshop content since its last rejection. This check should be performed when the service provider attempts to resubmit the workshop for moderation. If no changes are detected, the system should prevent the resubmission and display a message prompting the service provider to make the necessary revisions based on the moderator's feedback. This ensures that the moderation process is respected and that service providers are held accountable for addressing the issues identified by moderators. Additionally, consider implementing a visual indicator on the service provider's interface that highlights the specific areas of the workshop that need to be addressed based on the moderator's comments. This would provide clear guidance and streamline the revision process, reducing the likelihood of resubmission without adequate changes. This enhancement would significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the workshop moderation workflow.

Impact Assessment

Positive Impacts

• Improved Moderation Efficiency: Moderators will not have to repeatedly review the same unchanged workshops, saving time and effort.
• Higher Quality Workshops: Ensuring changes are made leads to better workshop content that meets the required standards.
• Enhanced User Experience: Service providers receive clear feedback and are guided to make necessary improvements, leading to a more streamlined process.

Negative Impacts

• Potential Delay in Workshop Publication: If service providers struggle to understand or implement the required changes, it could delay the publication of their workshops. However, this is outweighed by the benefits of improved quality and moderation efficiency.
• Increased Development Effort: Implementing the validation check and user interface enhancements will require additional development effort, but this is a necessary investment to address the bug and improve the overall system.

Technical Details

From a technical perspective, implementing this fix involves several key steps. First, we need to modify the backend logic to track the last modification timestamp of the workshop content. This can be achieved by adding a lastModified field to the workshop data model, which is updated whenever the service provider makes changes to the workshop. Next, we need to implement a validation check in the resubmission endpoint to compare the current workshop content with the content at the time of the last rejection. If the content is identical, the system should return an error message indicating that changes are required. On the frontend, we need to update the user interface to display this error message clearly and provide guidance to the service provider on how to address the moderator's feedback. Additionally, we should consider adding visual cues, such as highlighting the specific fields that need to be modified, to make the revision process more intuitive. Finally, thorough testing is essential to ensure that the fix works as expected and does not introduce any new issues. This includes unit tests for the backend logic and integration tests to verify the end-to-end workflow.

User Story and Test Case Links

• [Data model] Workshop (Study group)

Labels

• Bug
• Priority: (pri: Medium)
• Severity: (severity: Medium)
• Type: Functional
• API

Conclusion

Addressing this bug is crucial for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of our platform. By preventing service providers from resubmitting rejected workshops without making changes, we ensure that moderators' time is used effectively and that the quality of workshops remains high. The proposed solution involves implementing a validation check on the backend and providing clear feedback to service providers, leading to a more streamlined and user-friendly experience. This fix not only resolves a critical issue but also contributes to the overall improvement of our platform's functionality and user satisfaction. Let's get this implemented ASAP!