UI - blank expiration in workflow member review should not override individual expiration

[ArtjomsPorss]

Description

• fix for - in workflow approval page, when doing bulk approval, the blank expiration/review dates should not override individual member expiration/review dates.
• fix incorrect selectAllDateReviewReminder variable name.

Contribution Checklist:

• The pull request does not introduce any breaking changes
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• Create an issue and link to the pull request.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @ArtjomsPorss, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical UI issue where bulk approval operations could inadvertently clear individual member expiration and review reminder dates if the corresponding bulk input fields were left blank. The changes ensure that existing individual dates are preserved in such scenarios, enhancing data integrity and user experience on the workflow approval page. Additionally, a minor variable name inconsistency has been resolved.

Highlights

• Preservation of Individual Expiration/Review Dates: When performing bulk approvals on the workflow approval page, blank expiration or review reminder fields will no longer override existing individual member expiration or review reminder dates. Instead, the individual dates will be retained.
• Variable Name Correction: The variable selectAllReviewReminder in the PendingApprovalTable component has been renamed to selectAllDateReviewReminder for improved clarity and consistency.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly addresses an issue in the bulk approval workflow where blank expiration or review dates would incorrectly override individually set dates. The logic to preserve the individual dates is sound. Additionally, a variable name has been corrected for better clarity, and test data has been updated accordingly. The changes look good, but I've noticed a leftover debugging statement that should be removed.