CN113298423A - Work auditing method and device, computer equipment and storage medium - Google Patents

Abstract

The present disclosure provides a work review method, device, computer equipment and storage medium, wherein the method includes receiving a first work to be reviewed sent by a user terminal, and generating a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and adding the first review task to the review queue; in response to the update operation of the user terminal, receiving the updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal; wherein, The first work to be reviewed has the same work identifier as the second work to be reviewed; a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed is generated, and the second review task is added to the review queue and adding the identification information of the first audit task to the cancel audit task list, so that the audit tasks in the audit queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the cancel audit task list before being audited.

Description

A work review method, device, computer equipment and storage medium

technical field

The present disclosure relates to the field of computer technology, and in particular, to a work review method, device, computer equipment, and storage medium.

Background technique

With the development of Internet technology, online education has been popularized, online education can break through the limitations of time and space, improve learning efficiency, and lower the threshold of learning. In the process of participating in online education, users will have some interactions, such as answering questions by voice, answering questions in text, or recording videos with teaching templates, etc., so as to generate corresponding works. In order to avoid bad information in the works, it is necessary to review the user's works.

In the related art, when reviewing a user's work, in order to avoid omission of review, it is necessary to generate corresponding review tasks according to the work IDs of all works published by the user, and then the reviewers shall assign the corresponding work IDs one by one according to the review tasks. Works are reviewed. When a user updates a certain work, because the updated work and the work before the update carry the same work identification, when the reviewers review the work, the work obtained based on the work identification may be the work before the update. Or it may be an updated work. If it is a work before the update, it may lead to invalid review. If it is an updated work, it may lead to repeated review of the same work, thereby affecting the review efficiency of the work.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Embodiments of the present disclosure provide at least a work review method, apparatus, computer device, and storage medium.

In a first aspect, an embodiment of the present disclosure provides a method for reviewing works, including:

Receive the first work to be reviewed sent by the client, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to the review queue;

In response to the update operation of the user terminal, receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed and the second work to be reviewed The works have the same work identification;

generating a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and adding the second review task to the review queue; and adding the identification information of the first review task to the cancel review task list , so that the review tasks in the review queue determine whether they need to be reviewed based on the list of canceled review tasks before being reviewed.

In a possible implementation, after generating a first review task based on the first work to be reviewed and adding the first review task to the review queue, the method further includes:

After detecting that the first review task exists in the review queue, the review status of the work corresponding to the work identifier in the database is updated to be reviewed.

In a possible implementation, the method further includes:

Obtain the review status of each work in the database every first preset duration;

Based on the review status of each work acquired at the current time and the review status of each work acquired at the previous time, determine the first target work that has not been properly reviewed;

A third review task corresponding to the first target work is generated, and the third review task is added to the review queue.

In a possible implementation manner, the second target work corresponding to any review task in the review queue is reviewed according to the following steps:

Parse the audit queue, and obtain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks;

Based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, when it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, based on the identification information of the any one of the audit tasks, determine the Identification information of the second target work corresponding to any review task;

The second target work is reviewed based on the identification information of the second target work.

In a possible implementation, the method further includes:

After the review of the second target work is completed, the corresponding review result is saved in the database, and the review status of the second target work is updated to reviewed.

In a possible implementation, based on the identification information of any of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, it is detected that any of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, including:

In a case where it is detected that the list of canceled audit tasks does not contain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, it is determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited.

In a possible implementation, after adding the identification information of the audit task to the list of canceling the audit task, the method further includes:

In response to any audit task in the cancel audit task list meeting a preset deletion condition, the identification information of the audit task is deleted from the cancel audit task list.

In a possible implementation, the preset deletion condition includes at least one of the following:

The review status of the work corresponding to any of the review tasks is reviewed; the any review tasks are deleted from the review queue; or, the duration of the addition of the any review tasks to the cancel review task list exceeds The second preset duration.

In a possible implementation manner, the adding the identification information of the first audit task to the cancel audit task list includes:

When it is detected that the review status of the first work to be reviewed is unreviewed or under review, the identification information of the first review task is added to the list of canceled review tasks.

In a second aspect, an embodiment of the present disclosure also provides a work review device, including:

a receiving module, configured to receive the first work to be reviewed sent by the client, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to the review queue;

An update module, configured to respond to the update operation of the user terminal, and receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed is the same as the first work to be reviewed. The work identification of the second work to be reviewed is the same;

An adding module is configured to generate a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and add the second review task to the review queue; and add the identification information of the first review task to Cancel the audit task list, so that the audit tasks in the audit queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the cancel audit task list before being audited.

In a possible implementation, after generating a first review task based on the first work to be reviewed and adding the first review task to the review queue, the receiving module is further configured to:

After detecting that the first review task exists in the review queue, the review status of the work corresponding to the work identifier in the database is updated to be reviewed.

In a possible implementation, the adding module is also used for:

Obtain the review status of each work in the database every first preset duration;

Based on the review status of each work acquired at the current time and the review status of each work acquired at the previous time, determine the first target work that has not been properly reviewed;

A third review task corresponding to the first target work is generated, and the third review task is added to the review queue.

In a possible implementation manner, the device further includes a review module, and the review module reviews the second target work corresponding to any review task in the review queue according to the following steps:

Parse the audit queue, and obtain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks;

Based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, when it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, based on the identification information of the any one of the audit tasks, determine the Identification information of the second target work corresponding to any review task;

The second target work is reviewed based on the identification information of the second target work.

In a possible implementation manner, the audit module is further used for:

After the review of the second target work is completed, the corresponding review result is saved in the database, and the review status of the second target work is updated to reviewed.

In a possible implementation, the auditing module, when detecting that any of the auditing tasks is a task that needs to be audited based on the identification information of the any auditing task and the list of canceled auditing tasks, is used to: :

In a case where it is detected that the list of canceled audit tasks does not contain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, it is determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited.

In a possible implementation manner, after adding the identification information of the audit task to the list of canceled audit tasks, the adding module is further used for:

In response to any audit task in the cancel audit task list meeting a preset deletion condition, the identification information of the audit task is deleted from the cancel audit task list.

In a possible implementation, the preset deletion condition includes at least one of the following:

The review status of the work corresponding to any of the review tasks is reviewed; the any review tasks are deleted from the review queue; or, the duration of the addition of the any review tasks to the cancel review task list exceeds The second preset duration.

In a possible implementation manner, the adding module, when adding the identification information of the first audit task to the cancel audit task list, is used for:

When it is detected that the review status of the first work to be reviewed is unreviewed or under review, the identification information of the first review task is added to the list of canceled review tasks.

In a third aspect, embodiments of the present disclosure further provide a computer device, including: a processor, a memory, and a bus, where the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, and when the computer device runs, the processing A bus communicates between the processor and the memory, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor, the first aspect or the steps in any possible implementation manner of the first aspect are performed.

In a fourth aspect, embodiments of the present disclosure further provide a computer-readable storage medium, where a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and the computer program is executed by a processor to execute the first aspect, or any one of the first aspect. steps in one possible implementation.

The work review method, device, computer equipment and storage medium provided by the embodiments of the present disclosure can generate an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal, and can generate a work corresponding to the first work to be reviewed. Second, the second review task corresponding to the work to be reviewed, and the second review task is added to the review queue; then the first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed is added to the cancel review task list, In order to make the audit tasks in the audit queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the list of canceled audit tasks before being audited. In this way, it is possible to effectively avoid the situation of repeated review of the same work caused by the fact that two review tasks in the review queue correspond to the same work identifier.

In order to make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present disclosure more obvious and easy to understand, the preferred embodiments are exemplified below, and are described in detail as follows in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

Description of drawings

In order to explain the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present disclosure more clearly, the following briefly introduces the accompanying drawings required in the embodiments, which are incorporated into the specification and constitute a part of the specification. The drawings illustrate embodiments consistent with the present disclosure, and together with the description serve to explain the technical solutions of the present disclosure. It should be understood that the following drawings only show some embodiments of the present disclosure, and therefore should not be regarded as limiting the scope. Other related figures are obtained from these figures.

FIG. 1 shows a flowchart of a work review method provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure;

2 shows a flowchart of a specific method for adding a review task to a review queue in the work review method provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure;

3 shows a flowchart of a specific method for reviewing a second target work in the work review method provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 4 shows a flowchart of another work review method provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 5 shows a schematic diagram of the architecture of a work review device provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure;

FIG. 6 shows a schematic structural diagram of a computer device provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure.

Detailed ways

In order to make the purposes, technical solutions and advantages of the embodiments of the present disclosure more clear, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present disclosure will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present disclosure. Obviously, the described embodiments are only These are some, but not all, embodiments of the present disclosure. The components of the disclosed embodiments generally described and illustrated in the drawings herein may be arranged and designed in a variety of different configurations. Therefore, the following detailed description of the embodiments of the disclosure provided in the accompanying drawings is not intended to limit the scope of the disclosure as claimed, but is merely representative of selected embodiments of the disclosure. Based on the embodiments of the present disclosure, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative work fall within the protection scope of the present disclosure.

It should be noted that like numerals and letters refer to like items in the following figures, so once an item is defined in one figure, it does not require further definition and explanation in subsequent figures.

The term "and/or" in this paper only describes an association relationship, which means that there can be three kinds of relationships, for example, A and/or B, which can mean: the existence of A alone, the existence of A and B at the same time, the existence of B alone. a situation. In addition, the term "at least one" herein refers to any combination of any one of the plurality or at least two of the plurality, for example, including at least one of A, B, and C, and may mean including from A, B, and C. Any one or more elements selected from the set of B and C.

After research, it is found that when reviewing the user's works, in order to avoid missed review, it is necessary to generate corresponding review tasks according to the work IDs of all the works published by the user, and then the reviewers shall identify the corresponding work IDs one by one according to the review tasks. Works are reviewed. When a user updates a certain work, because the updated work and the work before the update carry the same work identification, when the reviewers review the work, the work obtained based on the work identification may be the work before the update. Or it may be an updated work. If it is a work before the update, it may lead to invalid review. If it is an updated work, it may lead to repeated review of the same work, thereby affecting the review efficiency of the work.

Among them, since the update and review of the work are asynchronous tasks (that is, there is no clear chronological relationship during execution), it is not certain whether the work has been updated when the review is carried out. If the work to be reviewed is a video, it will be The updated work takes a long time to update when it is saved to the database, so it may happen that the work fails to be updated during the review process, that is, the work obtained based on the work ID may be the work before the update, in this case The following may result in invalid review of the works before the update; in another possible case, the update time when the updated works are saved to the database cannot be determined. In order to ensure that each work will be reviewed, it needs to be based on The updated work regenerates the review task and adds the regenerated review task to the review queue. If a new review task is not added to the review queue based on the updated work, the first situation may occur, resulting in the updated work not being reviewed; During the review process, the review task before the update may not be executed, so it may happen that the work IDs corresponding to multiple review tasks in the review queue are the same. The work has been reviewed twice, that is, repeated review of the same work.

Based on the above research, the present disclosure provides a work review method, device, computer equipment and storage medium. After receiving the updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal, it is possible to generate The second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and the second review task is added to the review queue; then the first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed is added to cancel review in the task list, so that before being reviewed, the review tasks in the review queue are determined whether they need to be reviewed based on the list of canceled review tasks. In this way, it is possible to effectively avoid the situation of repeated review of the same work caused by two review tasks corresponding to the same work identifier in the review queue.

In order to facilitate the understanding of this embodiment, a work review method disclosed by the embodiment of the present disclosure is first introduced in detail. The execution subject of the work review method provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure is generally a computer device with a certain computing ability. Devices include, for example, servers or other processing devices. In some possible implementations, the work review method may be implemented by the processor invoking computer-readable instructions stored in the memory.

Referring to FIG. 1, which is a flowchart of a work review method provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure, the method includes steps S101-S103, wherein:

S101: Receive a first work to be reviewed sent by a user terminal, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to a review queue.

S102: In response to the update operation of the user terminal, receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed and the second work to be reviewed are received. The work identification of the work to be reviewed is the same.

S103: Generate a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and add the second review task to the review queue; and add the identification information of the first review task to the cancel review task list, so that the audit tasks in the audit queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the list of canceled audit tasks before being audited.

The following is a detailed description of the above steps.

For S101, the first work to be reviewed may be text, pictures, videos and other contents that need to be reviewed and sent by the client, and each of the first works to be reviewed has a unique corresponding work identifier, and the server receives the After the first work to be reviewed, the first work to be reviewed can be added to the database, and a coroutine is started to generate the first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and then the first review task is added. into the audit queue; wherein, the audit queue can be an exemplary rocketmq message queue.

Exemplarily, taking the relational database management system MySQL as the database management system corresponding to the database as an example, when the first work to be reviewed is added to the database, a work can be generated for the first work to be reviewed. Worksheet, which can be as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1

In Table 1, the first column represents the field names in the database, the second column represents the data type corresponding to each field name, and the third column identifies the description corresponding to each field name; In the database, the work content of the first work to be reviewed can be stored in "content", so that the work content of the first work to be reviewed can be determined through "content".

Specifically, when adding the first review task to the review queue, the coroutine may add the work identification of the first work to be reviewed and the identification information of the first review task to the review queue ; Wherein, the identification information of the first review task can be generated according to the work identification of the first work to be reviewed, for example, some strings can be spliced after the work identification of the first work to be reviewed, so as to generate the identification information.

In addition, since the first work to be reviewed has not been reviewed at this time, after the first work to be reviewed is added to the database, the release status of the first work to be reviewed can be set to not externally available. (that is, the first work to be reviewed is only visible to the client at this time), and a prompt message is sent to the client to remind the user that the first work to be reviewed has been successfully saved to the database.

In a possible implementation manner, after generating a first review task based on the first work to be reviewed, and adding the first review task to the review queue, it is also possible to detect that there are any existing tasks in the review queue. After the first review task is described, the review status of the work corresponding to the work identifier in the database is updated to under review.

In practical applications, when starting the coroutine to add the work identification of the first work to be reviewed and the identification information of the first review task to the review queue, abnormalities such as network instability may occur. In this case, the addition of the first review task fails, thereby causing the omission of review of the first work to be reviewed.

Based on this, when the first work to be reviewed is added to the database, its default review status is unreviewed, and when it is detected that there is a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed in the review queue , indicating that the first work to be reviewed at this time has entered the normal review process, so the review status of the first work to be reviewed can be updated to be under review.

In a possible implementation, as shown in Figure 2, an audit task may also be added to the audit queue through the following steps:

S201: Acquire the review status of each work in the database every first preset time period.

Here, the first preset duration may be set according to actual needs, for example, the first preset duration may be 5 minutes, that is, the review status of each work in the database is acquired every 5 minutes.

In addition, in order to speed up the acquisition speed and save computing resources, when acquiring the review status of the works in the database, only the review status of some works in the database may be acquired; exemplarily, the part of the works may be the latest 24 Works added to the database within hours. Works added to the database before the last 24 hours have generally been reviewed, so there is no need to monitor the review status.

S202: Determine the first target work that has not been properly reviewed based on the review status of each work obtained at the current time and the review status of each work obtained at the previous time.

Here, in order to prevent the database from being used to store bad information, all works stored in the database need to be reviewed. If the review status is still unreviewed, it can be determined that the work to be reviewed is the first target work that has not been properly reviewed.

In addition, due to network fluctuations, delays and other factors, there may be cases where the review task corresponding to a work to be reviewed has been added to the review queue, but the review status corresponding to the work to be reviewed cannot be updated in time. Directly determining the first target work that has not been properly reviewed based on the review status of each work acquired at one time may lead to repeated submissions of the work to be reviewed. Describe the first target work.

S203: Generate a third review task corresponding to the first target work, and add the third review task to the review queue.

Here, after determining the first target work that has not been properly reviewed, a coroutine can be started to generate a third review task corresponding to the first target work, and the third review task is added to the review queue, thereby effectively Avoid missed reviews of works pending review in the database.

Specifically, after starting a coroutine to generate the first review task corresponding to the first target work, and adding the first review task to the review queue, due to the nature of the coroutine, no matter whether the preset task is completed or not (generate the first review task and add it to the review queue), the coroutine will be terminated after its life cycle is reached, so after determining the first target work that has not been reviewed normally, a new coroutine needs to be restarted The coroutine of the first target work generates a third review task corresponding to the first target work, and adds the third review task to the review queue.

S102: In response to the update operation of the user terminal, receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed and the second work to be reviewed are received. The work identification of the work to be reviewed is the same.

Here, after sending the first work to be reviewed, the user terminal may also respond to the update instruction and send the updated second work to be reviewed to the server; since the first work to be reviewed is different from the second work to be reviewed The work identifiers of the works to be reviewed are the same, so when the server stores the second work to be reviewed, the work content of the second work to be reviewed needs to be added to the location corresponding to the first work to be reviewed in the database, That is, the first work to be reviewed is replaced with the second work to be reviewed.

S103: Generate a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and add the second review task to the review queue; and add the identification information of the first review task to the cancel review task list, so that the audit tasks in the audit queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the list of canceled audit tasks before being audited.

Here, similar to generating the first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, a coroutine can be started to generate the second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and the second review task can be added to in the review queue.

In a possible implementation, when it is detected that the review status of the first work to be reviewed is unreviewed or under review, the identification information of the first review task can be added to the list of cancel review tasks.

Specifically, after the second review task is added to the review queue, since the first review task may not be completed, there may be two review tasks corresponding to one work in the review queue. identified, resulting in duplicate reviews of the same work.

Therefore, in order to avoid repeated review of the same work, the identification information of the first review task may be added to the list of canceled review tasks, so that the review tasks in the review queue are based on the cancellation of the review task before being reviewed. The list determines if it needs to be reviewed.

In a possible implementation, as shown in FIG. 3 , the second target work corresponding to any review task in the review queue can be reviewed through the following steps:

S301: Parse the audit queue to obtain identification information of any one of the audit tasks.

S302: Based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, when it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, based on the identification information of the any one of the audit tasks, determine Identification information of the second target work corresponding to any one of the review tasks.

Here, the list of canceled audit tasks may be a set list in the key-value pair storage database Redis database, which is used to store identification information of audit tasks whose audit is canceled.

In a possible implementation, when it is detected that the identification information of any one of the audit tasks is not included in the list of canceled audit tasks, it can be determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited; corresponding , when it is detected that the cancellation audit task list contains the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, it can be determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that does not need to be audited, and at this time, the any one of the audit tasks can be directly An audit task is deleted, and the parsing operation of the audit queue is continued according to the preset parsing sequence.

S303: Review the second target work based on the identification information of the second target work.

Here, when reviewing the second target work, any one of the following two methods can be used:

Method A. Manual review.

Specifically, the second target work may be sent to the review terminal corresponding to the reviewer, and after the reviewer completes the review of the second target work, the second target work sent by the review terminal for the second target work may be received. The review result of the target work.

Method B. Automatic auditing.

Specifically, during automatic review, the second target work may be automatically reviewed by a preset review module in the server.

Exemplarily, taking the second target work as an example of a video work, during automatic review, the video work can be sampled according to a preset sampling interval to obtain a plurality of sampled video frames, and the trained neural The network identifies the sampled video frame to determine whether there is any illegal content in the sampled video frame; in addition, the audio data contained in the video work can also be identified, and according to the identified audio content, through the Matching methods such as keyword matching are used to determine whether the audio data contained in the video work contains illegal audio content.

Further, after the review of the second target work is completed, the corresponding review result may also be saved in a database, and the review status of the second target work is updated to reviewed.

Specifically, when the review status of the second target work is updated to have been reviewed, the corresponding review result may be sent to the client to prompt the client to complete the review. If the review result at this time is that the review is passed , the release status corresponding to the second target work can be updated to be visible to the outside world (that is, the second target work is visible to everyone at this time).

In a possible implementation, after adding the identification information of the auditing task to the canceling auditing task list, it is also possible to respond that any auditing task in the canceling auditing task list satisfies the preset deletion condition, The identification information is removed from the cancel audit task list.

Specifically, whether any audit task in the cancel audit task list satisfies the preset deletion condition can be judged from the following three conditions:

Condition 1. Whether the review status of the work corresponding to any of the review tasks is reviewed.

Specifically, after a work is reviewed, the corresponding review status of the work in the database will be updated to reviewed. Therefore, the works whose review status in the database is under review can be monitored, and when the cancellation of the review task is detected In the list, when the review status of the work corresponding to any review task is reviewed, the identification information of the review task can be deleted from the cancel review task list.

Condition 2. Whether any of the audit tasks is deleted from the audit queue.

Specifically, in the case where it is detected that the cancellation audit task list contains the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, the any one of the audit tasks can be deleted directly at this time, and when the any of the audit tasks is deleted from the If it is deleted from the auditing queue, the identification information of the auditing task may be correspondingly deleted from the list of canceling the auditing task.

Condition 3. Whether the duration of adding any one of the audit tasks to the list of canceled audit tasks exceeds a second preset duration.

Here, the second preset duration may be set according to actual needs, for example, may be set to 30 days.

Specifically, when the identification information of any audit task is added to the list of canceled audit tasks, the duration of adding the identification information of any audit task may be recorded, and when the added duration exceeds the second preset duration When the duration is set, the identification information of the auditing task can be deleted from the list of canceling the auditing task.

In practical applications, the identification information of the audit task that is no longer used in the cancel audit task list is deleted by the above judgment conditions, which can speed up the speed of traversing the cancel audit task list, so as to determine more quickly. Whether the audit tasks in the audit queue need to be audited, and computing resources are saved.

In order to facilitate the understanding of the work review method provided by the present disclosure, the following describes the work review method provided by the present disclosure in detail with reference to specific embodiments. Referring to FIG. 4, another work review method provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure is Flowchart, including:

S401: Acquire a first work to be reviewed sent by a user terminal, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to a review queue.

At this time, the first work to be reviewed on the client is only visible to the user, and after it is determined that the first review task has been successfully added to the review queue, the review status of the first work to be reviewed is updated from unreviewed to reviewing.

S402: In response to the update operation of the user terminal, receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal.

S403: Detect whether the first work to be reviewed has been reviewed.

Here, it is possible to detect whether the first work to be reviewed has been reviewed and completed by detecting the review status corresponding to the first work to be reviewed in the database. If it is detected that the first work to be reviewed has been reviewed and completed (the corresponding review status If it is detected that the first work to be reviewed has not been reviewed (the corresponding review status is not reviewed or under review), then perform S404 and S405.

S404: Add the identification information of the first audit task to the list of canceled audit tasks.

S405: Generate a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and add the second review task to the review queue.

S406: Acquire the task to be reviewed in response to the analysis request for the review queue; and based on the identification information of the task to be reviewed, review the work to be reviewed corresponding to the identification information of the task to be reviewed.

Here, the acquiring the task to be reviewed may be acquiring the first task to be reviewed sent by the client, or may be acquiring the tasks to be reviewed sent by other clients.

S407: Determine the review result of the work to be reviewed, store the review result of the work to be reviewed in the database, and send the review result to the client.

At this time, if the review result is approved, the release status corresponding to the work to be reviewed can be updated to be visible to all, and the review status of the work to be reviewed can be updated from reviewing to reviewed .

Specifically, for the specific content of the above steps, reference is made to the above related descriptions, which will not be further described here.

In the work review method provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure, after receiving the updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal, a second work to be reviewed corresponding to the second work to be reviewed can be generated. review task, and add the second review task to the review queue; then add the first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed to the cancel review task list, so that the review queue Before being reviewed, the review task determines whether it needs to be reviewed based on the list of cancel review tasks. In this way, it is possible to effectively avoid the situation of repeated review of the same work caused by the fact that two review tasks in the review queue correspond to the same work identifier.

Those skilled in the art can understand that in the above method of the specific implementation, the writing order of each step does not mean a strict execution order but constitutes any limitation on the implementation process, and the specific execution order of each step should be based on its function and possible Internal logic is determined.

Based on the same inventive concept, the embodiment of the present disclosure also provides a work review device corresponding to the work review method. Reference may be made to the implementation of the method, and repeated descriptions will not be repeated.

Referring to FIG. 5, which is a schematic diagram of the architecture of a work review device provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure, the device includes: a receiving module 501, an updating module 502, and an adding module 503; wherein,

A receiving module 501, configured to receive a first work to be reviewed sent by a user terminal, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to the review queue;

The update module 502 is configured to respond to the update operation of the user terminal, and receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed is the same as the The work identification of the second work to be reviewed is the same;

An adding module 503 is configured to generate a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and add the second review task to the review queue; and add the identification information of the first review task into the list of canceled auditing tasks, so that the auditing tasks in the auditing queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the list of canceled auditing tasks before being audited.

In a possible implementation, after generating a first review task based on the first work to be reviewed and adding the first review task to the review queue, the receiving module 501 is further configured to:

After detecting that the first review task exists in the review queue, the review status of the work corresponding to the work identifier in the database is updated to be reviewed.

In a possible implementation manner, the adding module 503 is further used for:

Obtain the review status of each work in the database every first preset duration;

Based on the review status of each work acquired at the current time and the review status of each work acquired at the previous time, determine the first target work that has not been properly reviewed;

A third review task corresponding to the first target work is generated, and the third review task is added to the review queue.

In a possible implementation manner, the apparatus further includes an auditing module 504;

The review module 504 is configured to review the second target work corresponding to any review task in the review queue according to the following steps:

Parse the audit queue, and obtain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks;

Based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, when it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, based on the identification information of the any one of the audit tasks, determine the Identification information of the second target work corresponding to any review task;

The second target work is reviewed based on the identification information of the second target work.

In a possible implementation manner, the auditing module 504 is further configured to:

After the review of the second target work is completed, the corresponding review result is saved in the database, and the review status of the second target work is updated to reviewed.

In a possible implementation, the auditing module 504, when detecting that any of the auditing tasks is a task that needs to be audited based on the identification information of the any auditing task and the list of canceled auditing tasks, uses At:

In a case where it is detected that the list of canceled audit tasks does not contain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, it is determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited.

In a possible implementation manner, after adding the identification information of the audit task to the list of canceled audit tasks, the adding module 503 is further configured to:

In response to any audit task in the cancel audit task list meeting a preset deletion condition, the identification information of the audit task is deleted from the cancel audit task list.

In a possible implementation, the preset deletion condition includes at least one of the following:

The review status of the work corresponding to any of the review tasks is reviewed; the any review tasks are deleted from the review queue; or, the duration of the addition of the any review tasks to the cancel review task list exceeds The second preset duration.

In a possible implementation manner, the adding module 503, when adding the identification information of the first audit task to the cancel audit task list, is used for:

When it is detected that the review status of the first work to be reviewed is unreviewed or under review, the identification information of the first review task is added to the list of canceled review tasks.

The device for reviewing works provided by the embodiments of the present disclosure may generate a second work corresponding to the second work to be reviewed after receiving the updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed and sent by the user terminal. review task, and add the second review task to the review queue; then add the first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed to the cancel review task list, so that the review queue Before being reviewed, the review task determines whether it needs to be reviewed based on the list of cancel review tasks. In this way, it is possible to effectively avoid the situation of repeated review of the same work caused by the fact that two review tasks in the review queue correspond to the same work identifier.

For the description of the processing flow of each module in the apparatus and the interaction flow between the modules, reference may be made to the relevant descriptions in the foregoing method embodiments, which will not be described in detail here.

Based on the same technical concept, an embodiment of the present disclosure also provides a computer device. Referring to FIG. 6 , a schematic structural diagram of a computer device 600 provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a processor 601 , a memory 602 , and a bus 603 . Among them, the memory 602 is used to store the execution instructions, including the memory 6021 and the external memory 6022; the memory 6021 here is also called the internal memory, and is used to temporarily store the operation data in the processor 601 and the data exchanged with the external memory 6022 such as the hard disk, The processor 601 exchanges data with the external memory 6022 through the memory 6021. When the computer device 600 is running, the processor 601 communicates with the memory 602 through the bus 603, so that the processor 601 executes the following instructions:

Receive the first work to be reviewed sent by the client, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to the review queue;

In response to the update operation of the user terminal, receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed and the second work to be reviewed The works have the same work identification;

generating a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and adding the second review task to the review queue; and adding the identification information of the first review task to the cancel review task list , so that the review tasks in the review queue determine whether they need to be reviewed based on the list of canceled review tasks before being reviewed.

In a possible implementation manner, the instruction of the processor 601, after generating a first review task based on the first work to be reviewed, and adding the first review task to the review queue, further includes:

After detecting that the first review task exists in the review queue, the review status of the work corresponding to the work identifier in the database is updated to be reviewed.

In a possible implementation manner, the instructions of the processor 601 further include:

Obtain the review status of each work in the database every first preset duration;

Based on the review status of each work acquired at the current time and the review status of each work acquired at the previous time, determine the first target work that has not been properly reviewed;

A third review task corresponding to the first target work is generated, and the third review task is added to the review queue.

In a possible implementation manner, in the instruction of the processor 601, the second target work corresponding to any review task in the review queue is reviewed according to the following steps:

Parse the audit queue, and obtain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks;

Based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, when it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, based on the identification information of the any one of the audit tasks, determine the Identification information of the second target work corresponding to any review task;

The second target work is reviewed based on the identification information of the second target work.

In a possible implementation manner, the instructions of the processor 601 further include:

After the review of the second target work is completed, the corresponding review result is saved in the database, and the review status of the second target work is updated to reviewed.

In a possible implementation manner, in the instruction of the processor 601, based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks needs to be audited. tasks, including:

In a case where it is detected that the list of canceled audit tasks does not contain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, it is determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited.

In a possible implementation manner, the instruction of the processor 601, after adding the identification information of the audit task to the list of canceled audit tasks, further includes:

In response to any audit task in the cancel audit task list meeting a preset deletion condition, the identification information of the audit task is deleted from the cancel audit task list.

In a possible implementation manner, in the instruction of the processor 601, the preset deletion condition includes at least one of the following:

The review status of the work corresponding to any of the review tasks is reviewed; the any review tasks are deleted from the review queue; or, the duration of the addition of the any review tasks to the cancel review task list exceeds The second preset duration.

In a possible implementation manner, in the instruction of the processor 601, the adding the identification information of the first audit task to the cancel audit task list includes:

When it is detected that the review status of the first work to be reviewed is unreviewed or under review, the identification information of the first review task is added to the list of canceled review tasks.

Embodiments of the present disclosure further provide a computer-readable storage medium, where a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is run by a processor, the steps of the work review method described in the above method embodiments are executed. Wherein, the storage medium may be a volatile or non-volatile computer-readable storage medium.

Embodiments of the present disclosure further provide a computer program product, where the computer program product carries program code, and the program code includes instructions that can be used to execute the steps of the work review method described in the above method embodiments. For details, please refer to the above method The embodiments are not repeated here.

Wherein, the above-mentioned computer program product can be specifically implemented by means of hardware, software or a combination thereof. In an optional embodiment, the computer program product is embodied as a computer storage medium, and in another optional embodiment, the computer program product is embodied as a software product, such as a software development kit (Software Development Kit, SDK), etc. Wait.

Those skilled in the art can clearly understand that, for the convenience and brevity of description, for the specific working process of the device described above, reference may be made to the corresponding process in the foregoing method embodiments, which will not be repeated here. In the several embodiments provided in the present disclosure, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus and method may be implemented in other manners. The device embodiments described above are only illustrative. For example, the division of the units is only a logical function division. In actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined. Or some features can be ignored, or not implemented. On the other hand, the shown or discussed mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection may be through some communication interfaces, indirect coupling or communication connection of devices or units, which may be in electrical, mechanical or other forms.

The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separated, and components displayed as units may or may not be physical units, that is, may be located in one place, or may be distributed to multiple network units. Some or all of the units may be selected according to actual needs to achieve the purpose of the solution in this embodiment.

In addition, each functional unit in each embodiment of the present disclosure may be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit may exist physically alone, or two or more units may be integrated into one unit.

The functions, if implemented in the form of software functional units and sold or used as stand-alone products, may be stored in a processor-executable non-volatile computer-readable storage medium. Based on such understanding, the technical solutions of the present disclosure can be embodied in the form of software products in essence, or the parts that contribute to the prior art or the parts of the technical solutions. The computer software products are stored in a storage medium, including Several instructions are used to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in various embodiments of the present disclosure. The aforementioned storage medium includes: U disk, mobile hard disk, read-only memory (Read-Only Memory, ROM), random access memory (Random Access Memory, RAM), magnetic disk or optical disk and other media that can store program codes.

Finally, it should be noted that the above-mentioned embodiments are only specific implementations of the present disclosure, and are used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present disclosure rather than limit them. The protection scope of the present disclosure is not limited thereto, although referring to the foregoing The embodiments describe the present disclosure in detail. Those of ordinary skill in the art should understand that: any person skilled in the art can still modify the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments within the technical scope disclosed by the present disclosure. Changes can be easily thought of, or equivalent replacements are made to some of the technical features; and these modifications, changes or replacements do not make the essence of the corresponding technical solutions deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present disclosure, and should be covered in the present disclosure. within the scope of protection. Therefore, the protection scope of the present disclosure should be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims (12)

1. A method for reviewing works, comprising: Receive the first work to be reviewed sent by the client, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to the review queue; In response to the update operation of the user terminal, receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed and the second work to be reviewed The works have the same work identification; generating a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and adding the second review task to the review queue; and adding the identification information of the first review task to the cancel review task list , so that the review tasks in the review queue determine whether they need to be reviewed based on the list of canceled review tasks before being reviewed. 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein after generating a first review task based on the first work to be reviewed and adding the first review task to the review queue, the method further comprises: : After detecting that the first review task exists in the review queue, the review status of the work corresponding to the work identifier in the database is updated to be reviewed. 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: Obtain the review status of each work in the database every first preset duration; Based on the review status of each work acquired at the current time and the review status of each work acquired at the previous time, determine the first target work that has not been properly reviewed; A third review task corresponding to the first target work is generated, and the third review task is added to the review queue. 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second target work corresponding to any one of the audit tasks in the audit queue is audited according to the following steps: Parse the audit queue, and obtain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks; Based on the identification information of any one of the audit tasks and the list of canceled audit tasks, when it is detected that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited, based on the identification information of the any one of the audit tasks, determine the Identification information of the second target work corresponding to any review task; The second target work is reviewed based on the identification information of the second target work. 5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises: After the review of the second target work is completed, the corresponding review result is saved in the database, and the review status of the second target work is updated to reviewed. 6. The method according to claim 4, wherein, based on the identification information of the any audit task and the canceled audit task list, it is detected that the any audit task is a task that needs to be audited, include: In a case where it is detected that the list of canceled audit tasks does not contain the identification information of any one of the audit tasks, it is determined that the any one of the audit tasks is a task that needs to be audited. 7. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein after the identification information of the audit task is added to the list of canceled audit tasks, the method further comprises: In response to any audit task in the cancel audit task list meeting a preset deletion condition, the identification information of the audit task is deleted from the cancel audit task list. 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the preset deletion condition comprises at least one of the following: The review status of the work corresponding to any of the review tasks is reviewed; the any review tasks are deleted from the review queue; or, the duration of the addition of the any review tasks to the cancel review task list exceeds The second preset duration. 9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the adding the identification information of the first audit task to the cancel audit task list comprises: When it is detected that the review status of the first work to be reviewed is unreviewed or under review, the identification information of the first review task is added to the list of canceled review tasks. 10. A work review device, characterized in that, comprising: a receiving module, configured to receive the first work to be reviewed sent by the client, generate a first review task corresponding to the first work to be reviewed, and add the first review task to the review queue; An update module, configured to respond to the update operation of the user terminal, and receive an updated second work to be reviewed corresponding to the first work to be reviewed sent by the user terminal; wherein the first work to be reviewed is the same as the first work to be reviewed. The work identification of the second work to be reviewed is the same; An adding module is configured to generate a second review task corresponding to the second work to be reviewed, and add the second review task to the review queue; and add the identification information of the first review task to Cancel the audit task list, so that the audit tasks in the audit queue determine whether they need to be audited based on the cancel audit task list before being audited. 11. A computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, and when the computer device runs, the processor and the The memories communicate with each other through a bus, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor, the steps of the work review method according to any one of claims 1 to 9 are executed. 12. A computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is run by a processor, the work review method according to any one of claims 1 to 9 is executed A step of.

Images