(*CiviCRM Review Template DEL-1.2*) * General standards * Explain ([`r-explain`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-explain)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__ : The goal/problem/solution have been adequately explained in the PR. * __PASS__ : The goal/problem/solution have been adequately explained with a link (JIRA, Github, Gitlab, StackExchange). * __ISSUE__: Please provide a better explanation of the goal/problem being addressed. * __ISSUE__: Please provide a better explanation of how this solution works. * __COMMENTS__: * 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), and the approach should be changed. * __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), and we need a better transition/communication plan. * __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan. * __COMMENTS__: * Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation. * __PASS__: The changes do not require documentation. * __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated. * __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated. * __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated. * __COMMENTS__: * Run it ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: * __ISSUE__: * Developer standards * 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. * __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed. * __COMMENTS__: * Code quality ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible. * __ISSUE__: Something was unclear to me. * __ISSUE__: The approach should be different. * __COMMENTS__: * Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests. * __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway. * __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage. * __COMMENTS__: * Test results ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test)) * __UNREVIEWED__ * __PASS__: The test results are all-clear. * __PASS__: The test results have failures, but these have been individually inspected and found to be irrelevant. * __ISSUE__: The test failures need to be resolved. * __COMMENTS__: