| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #20452
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Avoid line_code and position calculation on line partial for plain view
See merge request !5591
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Sensible state specific default sort order for issues and merge requests
## What does this MR do?
It provides more sensible default sort order for issues and merge requests based on the following table:
| type | state | default sort order |
|----------------|--------|--------------------|
| issues | open | last created |
| issues | closed | last updated |
| issues | all | last created |
| merge requests | open | last created |
| merge requests | merged | last updated |
| merge requests | closed | last updated |
| merge requests | all | last created |
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
All the bits where `id_desc` was changed to `created_desc`.
I hope it's okay, It makes more sense in my opinion.
## Why was this MR needed?
Prior to this MR the issues and merge request were sorted based on `id_desc` by default.
This MR aims to make the interface more user-friendly by providing state specific sorting defaults most users would expect.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
See #15064
See merge request !5453
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Provide more sensible default sort order for issues and merge requests
based on the following table:
| type | state | default sort order |
|----------------|--------|--------------------|
| issues | open | last created |
| issues | closed | last updated |
| issues | all | last created |
| merge requests | open | last created |
| merge requests | merged | last updated |
| merge requests | closed | last updated |
| merge requests | all | last created |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Fix Importing labels and milestones associations - Import/Export
Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19510 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19447
- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5426
|
| | | |/
| |/|
| | |
| | | |
refactored reader class a bit
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Add an URL field to Enviroments
## What does this MR do?
Adds a field to the `enviroments` table to expose later in other features. Now I see the task list below, I noticed I forgot some minor things, but Ill adress those after the first review.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
The field is a string on the database, thus limited to 255 chars, which seems more than enough.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #19527
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [x] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5469
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Also a couple of minor edits for this branch are included
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | |/
| |/|
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This MR adds a string (thus max 255 chars) field to the enviroments
table to expose it later in other features.
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Make "New issue" button in Issue page less obtrusive
## What does this MR do?
Replace green background of "New issue" button on issue page by green border and text.
## Why was this MR needed?
Every issue page has two green buttons—Comment and New Issue.
- New Issue is not directly content related and less likely to be used.
- [UI Guide] says
> Use green or blue button for primary action. Primary button should be only one.
[UI Guide]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/ui_guide.md
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
fixes #20186
## Screenshots
### Before
### After
See merge request !5457
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |_|_|/
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Clarify CI script needing to quote colons
## What does this MR do?
Clarifies documentation for `.gitlab-ci.yml` `script`.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Should this be a note? Is there a link to YAML spec we can point to?
## Why was this MR needed?
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #20177.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
See merge request !5481
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Update start-using-git.md to reflect that merges to master can be made from either the master or the named branch.
## What does this MR do?
The documentation is incorrect in stating that you need to be in the named branch in order to merge to master. You can be in master and merge the named branch, too.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes
## Why was this MR needed?
This MR is needed to correct an inaccuracy in the documentation.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
N/A
## Screenshots (if relevant)
N/A
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
It is only a documentation change, so mostly this is not applicable.
- [ ] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5404
|
| | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Clarify backup_keep_time config parameter with S3
Discussed in gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab#1453
See merge request !5567
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Discussed in gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab#1453
[ci skip]
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Improve spinach test to be more specific about link to click
If you add another branch to gitlab-test that includes the word 'test', browse_files.feature will fail with an ambiguous match.
See merge request !5589
|
| |/ / / / / /
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
If you add another branch to gitlab-test that includes the word 'test',
browse_files.feature will fail with an ambiguous match.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Ignore invalid IPs in X-Forwarded-For when trusted proxies are configured.
## What does this MR do?
Catches IPAddr::InvalidAddressError exceptions in `trusted_proxy?` when a) a trusted proxy is set up in the gitlab config and b) an invalid IP address is passed to the method (e.g. one with a port attached). When caught, returns `false` from the method. Prevents a 500 error in this situation.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#20466.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [X] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [N/A] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [N/A] API support added
- Tests
- [X] Added for this feature/bug
- [X] All builds are passing
- [X] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [X] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [X] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5584
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| |/ / / / / / |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Clarify which project is deleted to avoid alarm
Some users were alarmed when navigating after deleting a project. Add the project name to avoid cause for alarm.
Closes #13654
See merge request !5574
|
| | | |_|_|/ /
| |/| | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Closes #13654
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Properly abort a merge when merge conflicts occur
If somehow a user attempted to accept a merge request that had conflicts (e.g. the "Accept Merge Request" button or the MR itself was not updated), `MergeService` did not properly detect that a conflict
occurred. It would assume that the MR went through without any issues and close the MR as though everything was fine. This could cause data loss if the source branch were removed.
Closes #20425
See merge request !5569
|
| | |/ / / / /
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
If somehow a user attempted to accept a merge request that had
conflicts (e.g. the "Accept Merge Request" button or the MR itself was
not updated), `MergeService` did not properly detect that a conflict
occurred. It would assume that the MR went through without any issues
and close the MR as though everything was fine. This could cause
data loss if the source branch were removed.
Closes #20425
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / /
|/| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Improve diff performance by eliminating redundant checks for text blobs
See merge request !5575
|
| |/ / / / /
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
On a merge request with over 1000 changed files, there were redundant
calls to blob_text_viewable?, which incurred about 7% of the time.
Improves #14775
|
| |\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
fix repo hooks missing on import
Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19556
Repo hooks are missing from imported projects
- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5549
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
fix spec and added changelog
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Optimize checking if a user can read multiple issues
## What does this MR do?
This optimizes various parts of the code so it can more efficiently check if a user can read a list of issues.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes, in particular `Ability.issues_readable_by_user` should be checked to make sure it correctly allows/restricts access to issues.
## Why was this MR needed?
Currently the general approach to checking if one can read an issue is to iterate over the issues to check and call `can?(user, :read_issue, issue)` for every issue. This is not efficient as the same work has to be done for every issue.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
* #15607
* #17463
See merge request !5370
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
The method Ability.issues_readable_by_user takes a list of users and an
optional user and returns an Array of issues readable by said user. This
method in turn is used by
Banzai::ReferenceParser::IssueParser#nodes_visible_to_user so this
method no longer needs to get all the available abilities just to check
if a user has the "read_issue" ability.
To test this I benchmarked an issue with 222 comments on my development
environment. Using these changes the time spent in nodes_visible_to_user
was reduced from around 120 ms to around 40 ms.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Enable Rubocop cops that check access modifiers
## What does this MR do?
This MR enables Rubocop cops that detect methods that should be restricted but are the part of public API because of access modifiers used improperly.
This also fixes existing offenses.
## Why was this MR needed?
Some method in our codebase are public instead of being private because it is sometimes difficult to get it right without static analysis.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
See #17478
Closes #17372
See merge request !5014
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
This enables following cops:
Check for useless access modifiers
Lint/UselessAccessModifier
Checks for attempts to use `private` or `protected` to set the
visibility of a class method, which does not work.
Lint/IneffectiveAccessModifier
This also disables two false possitives in concerns.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Move CI job config entries from legacy to new config
## What does this MR do?
This MR extracts jobs configuration logic from legacy CI config processor to the new code.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#15060
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
See merge request !5087
|
