Use data client for peer review calls

[maskaravivek]

Fixes #2921

This is the first PR where we start leveraging the data client library.

The APIs were not defined in the library so as defined in the documentation, I have created a ReviewInterface for the API calls.

Check out the documentation to go through the steps.

https://github.com/wikimedia/wikimedia-android-data-client

[pullrequest]

✅ A review job has been created and sent to the PullRequest network.

---

@maskaravivek you can click here to see the review status or cancel the code review job.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #2937 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 73.68%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #2937      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage    3.69%    3.7%   +0.01%     
=========================================
  Files         249     249              
  Lines       12271   12226      -45     
  Branches     1091    1085       -6     
=========================================
  Hits          453     453              
+ Misses      11783   11739      -44     
+ Partials       35      34       -1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...fr/free/nrw/commons/mwapi/OkHttpJsonApiClient.java	1.05% <ø> (+0.21%)	⬆️
.../free/nrw/commons/di/CommonsApplicationModule.java	0% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
.../java/fr/free/nrw/commons/di/NetworkingModule.java	0% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
...ava/fr/free/nrw/commons/review/ReviewActivity.java	0% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
.../java/fr/free/nrw/commons/review/ReviewHelper.java	88.88% <87.5%> (+2.4%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 06dbfef...1e62e8c. Read the comment docs.

[neslihanturan]

Thanks @maskaravivek

[misaochan]

@neslihanturan , what manual tests did you perform with this?

[neslihanturan]

Hi @misaochan , since this looked like a basic refactor and all tests are included I played around peer review such as marking images as mis-categorized etc. But I can't say precise test steps, will definitely write next time. Now I remake a test too on master since this code is already on master (on beta cluster API 26 emulator), and mis-categorized thing works but others has no effect. Did you also experience this issue?

[maskaravivek]

Hi @misaochan , since this looked like a basic refactor and all tests are included I played around peer review such as marking images as mis-categorized etc. But I can't say precise test steps, will definitely write next time. Now I remake a test too on master since this code is already on master (on beta cluster API 26 emulator), and mis-categorized thing works but others has no effect. Did you also experience this issue?

Did something break?

[neslihanturan]

yes @maskaravivek according to my beta cluster tests current master review questions has no effect except category one.

[misaochan]

Yes, same issue here. I think for PRs related to our backend overhaul, we need to manually test them a bit more rigorously than we would other PRs, due to the high potential for side effects.

[neslihanturan]

I agree, will be more careful next time. Do you think we should revert this merge?

[maskaravivek]

I agree, will be more careful next time. Do you think we should revert this merge?

It would be great if we could keep the changes in master as my other changes are based on it. I can pick up the fixes for the issues immediately.

[neslihanturan]

Okay, thanks @maskaravivek !

[misaochan]

Sure, we can keep the changes in master, just link to this when you have your fix PR up.

[maskaravivek]

Sure, we can keep the changes in master, just link to this when you have your fix PR up.

Sure. :)