diff --git a/docs/standards/review.md b/docs/standards/review.md index 0354e0ee5ca098be7e6e14382a2af6f13ee43c7a..69cddde5364d46e9c013cb70cc4060cdc7dd4c4c 100644 --- a/docs/standards/review.md +++ b/docs/standards/review.md @@ -37,13 +37,13 @@ Use the code somehow. You don’t need to attack every imaginable scenario in ev ### User impact {:#r-user} -_Standard code: `r-users`_ +_Standard code: `r-user`_ If a user was comfortable using the old revision, would they upgrade and assimilate naturally and unthinkingly to the new revision? If not, has there been commensurate effort to provide a fair transition-path and communication? -### Technical impact {:#r-technical} +### Technical impact {:#r-tech} -_Standard code: `r-technical`_ +_Standard code: `r-tech`_ * Would the patch materially change the contract (signature/pre-condition/post-condition) for APIv3, a hook, a PHP function, a PHP class, a JS widget, or a CSS class? * Would you consider the changed element to be an officially supported contract? A de-facto important contract? An obscure internal detail? diff --git a/docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md b/docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md index 8194dfab84c9e2980c237693d2a85e121284d508..56a6c0df22da00027480143fee959c177ef98ba7 100644 --- a/docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md +++ b/docs/standards/review/template-del-1.0.md @@ -24,13 +24,13 @@ * __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected. * __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem. * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)* -* User impact ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users)) +* User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature. * __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining). * __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan. * __COMMENTS__: *(optional)* -* Technical impact ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical)) +* Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream. * __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed. diff --git a/docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md b/docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md index 732f190684095f16c41dae9e9fb39f14d3960c61..21c345ba652ed959f1c5a2447dc69de14307d359 100644 --- a/docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md +++ b/docs/standards/review/template-mc-1.0.md @@ -20,12 +20,12 @@ * [ ] __PASS__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it behaved as expected. * [ ] __ISSUE__: I executed the code in a few plausible ways, and it had a problem. * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)* -* User impact ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users)) +* User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user)) * [ ] __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature. * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining). * [ ] __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan. * [ ] __COMMENTS__: *(optional)* -* Technical impact ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical)) +* Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech)) * [ ] __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream. * [ ] __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed. * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed. diff --git a/docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md b/docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md index 0d7a709fb445fbbbc348fb2b7d23152cc387f774..f36711cf6cd8927c299e5cb72ee73396333b7968 100644 --- a/docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md +++ b/docs/standards/review/template-word-1.0.md @@ -8,5 +8,5 @@ * ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc)) __Undecided__ * ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint)) __Undecided__ * ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*) -* ([`r-users`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-users)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*) -* ([`r-technical`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-technical)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*) +* ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*) +* ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech)) __Undecided__: (*Describe...*)