[Task]: Developers can request a new content review to re-enable their listing via devhub

[eviljeff]

Description

Provide a button in the developer hub for the developer to request a re-review of the content once they have addressed the violation.

Acceptance Criteria

• Requesting the re-review should place the listing back into the content review queue.
• The developer should be reminded what the issues were and be forced to acknowledge that they resolved them when submitting this.

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task

[eviljeff]

@abyrne-moz Where do we want this "button" in devhub?

If there is any particular design needed for content (how the policy issues should be displayed, etc, etc) please instruct UX.

[eviljeff]

One thing that occurred to me after submitting mozilla/addons-server#24386 is there isn't a way in the models to "flag" that a developer requested a new review while status=rejected. I'd only thought about this being done via Cinder, so we'd create a job to trigger that new review.

[diox]

I was thinking of just adding a NHR on the current_version for a dedicated reason

[eviljeff]

I was thinking of just adding a NHR on the current_version for a dedicated reason

We could do that, but the content review queue doesn't use NHRs, afaik, and the normal listed review page can't content approve/reject (the reviewer would need to navigate to a different page). Content reviews also don't clear NHRs, currently.

[eviljeff]

Options:

• some sort of new field/flag to indicate a review is needed, on some model, that we can filter on
• NHR on the current version (with the drawbacks mentioned)
• create a special kind of content-review job for content reviews, and have the review tool query for that instead (and resolve that job automatically in the reviewer tools)

I like the last option really - it'd be more code to set up, but it would match more closely how the TaskUs operated content reviews are going to work.

[eviljeff]

* create a special kind of content-review job for content reviews, and have the review tool query for that instead (and resolve that job automatically in the reviewer tools)

If we go down that route, I'd pull forward #15969 that would create the job in Cinder, and then just expose that in the reviewer tools too.