Repository navigation
Releases
Content Review Queue 0.1.0
digicyfr-content-review-queue 0.1.0 release notes
This is the first free GPL-2.0-or-later release for manual ZIP installation. Source: https://github.com/digicyfr/digicyfr-content-review-queue. The release/0.1.0 branch records the reviewed version. The branch alone is source code; use the attached digicyfr-content-review-queue-0.1.0.zip and verify its .sha256 sidecar before installation.
Included
Private post/page due dates, eligible editor assignment, action history, queue filters, classic/block editor controls, and guarded CSV export.
Verification and compatibility
WordPress 7.1, PHP 8.3.33 and MariaDB 11.4.13. The exact public GitHub ZIP passed install, integration fixtures, and a post-tag Chromium run covering schedule, review, snooze, invalid-date feedback, focused notices, filtered CSV, editor panel and 390px layout. PHP/JS syntax and WPCS passed. Plugin Check ran on an earlier runtime-identical ZIP and reported only the documented self-host distribution findings.
Limits and follow-up checks
A post-tag axe-core 4.10.3 check of the exact public ZIP found no definite violations on the private queue or item form at desktop or 390px; keyboard focus and named action controls were also checked. Some native-control contrast cases remained inconclusive to axe. See the dated QA evidence. A manual screen-reader pass, a representative small-team staging flow, multisite behavior, and very large editorial teams remain untested. Assignee selection and queue scans may be slow at large scale. The plugin sends no reminders or email.
The self-hosted release was promoted after exact-ZIP integration and automated browser/accessibility checks. These checks do not certify WCAG conformance or test a specific customer's editorial process. Review the scope before use and report issues through the repository.
The Update URI protects this self-hosted plugin from an unrelated WordPress.org plugin with the same slug. It does not provide automatic updates. WordPress.org submission would need a separate review and distribution-specific changes. See QA record for the detailed local evidence.