| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
- Cherry-picked from `mvestergaard:branch-protection-dev-merge`
- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/4220
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Render inline diffs for multiple changed lines following eachother
Before:
After:
See merge request !5174
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/17877 .
This change adds 'defense in depth' against 'Host' HTTP header
injection. It affects normal users in the following way. Suppose your
GitLab server has IP address 1.2.3.4 and hostname gitlab.example.com.
Currently, if you enter 1.2.3.4 in your browser, you get redirected to
1.2.3.4/users/sign_in. After this change, you get redirected from
1.2.3.4 to gitlab.example.com/users/sign_in. This is because the
address you typed in the address bar of your browser ('1.2.3.4'),
which gets stored in the 'Host' header, is now being overwritten to
'gitlab.example.com' in NGINX.
In this change we also make NGINX clear the 'X-Forwarded-Host' header
because Ruby on Rails also uses that header the same wayas the 'Host'
header.
We think that for most GitLab servers this is the right behavior, and
if not then administrators can change this behavior themselves at the
NGINX level.
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
'master'
Delete award emoji when deleting a user
## What does this MR do?
Fix the problem where a user's award emoji aren't deleted when the user is deleted.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
The corresponding SELECT for the migration runs in 0.3s on staging, but I can't test the delete there or on production easily. It should be reasonably quick.
## Why was this MR needed?
There was a typo in an association :scream:
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #19693.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
Nope.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [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
- [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 !5216
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Resolve "Design updates for Builds & Pipelines"
## What does this MR do?
Updates pipelines design
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Part of #18920
Closes #17760
Closes #18479
Closes #19618
## Screenshots (if relevant)
See merge request !5156
|
| | |/ / / |
|
| |/ / /
| | |
| | |
| | | |
[ci skip]
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Optimistic locking for Issue and Merge Requests
## What does this MR do?
It implements Optimistic Locking http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Locking/Optimistic.html for Issues and MRs but in a bit custom way. We use it for cases when either title or description field is involved in the change.
## Why was this MR needed?
We have to prevent data losing.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/12940
## Screenshots (if relevant)
See merge request !5146
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |/ / /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Cache todos pending/done dashboard query counts
See #19273
See merge request !5175
|
| | |/ / |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Fix GitHub client requests when rate limit is disabled
## What does this MR do?
GitHub Rate Limit API returns 404 when the rate limit is disabled. In this case we just want to return gracefully instead of spitting out an error.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No.
## Why was this MR needed?
GitHub importer fails when rate limit is disabled in GitHub Enterprise.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/697
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [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)
- [ ] 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 !5191
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |/ / /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
ObjectRenderer uses read_multi to read cache
## What does this MR do?
Get cache rendered content in bulk
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#19273
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [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
- [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 !5096
|
| | | | | |
|
| | |/ /
|/| | |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Expire the branch cache after `git gc` runs
Due to a stale NFS cache, it's possible that a branch lookup fails while `git gc` is running and causes missing branches in merge requests.
I'm not totally convinced this is the right solution, but since we and our customers are experiencing this issue quite frequently, I'm taking a stab at it.
Possible workaround for #15392
See merge request !5160
|
| | |/ /
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Due to a stale NFS cache, it's possible that a branch lookup fails
while `git gc` is running and causes missing branches in merge requests.
Possible workaround for #15392
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Be explicit on merge request discussion variables
## What does this MR do?
To avoid conditionals and to messing with request.format and accept headers to know in which format we're going to response I've decided to be explicit in when we need the discussion variables
## Why was this MR needed?
Solve a bug https://sentry.gitlap.com/gitlab/staginggitlabcom/issues/8492/
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #19702
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [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
- [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 !5204
|
| | |/ / |
|
| |\ \ \
| |/ /
|/| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Style of import project buttons were fixed in the new project page.
## What does this MR do?
I have fixed style of import project buttons in the new project page.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I don't think so.
## Why was this MR needed?
Because the buttons area hasn't looked well. Before this, it was scattered.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Fixes #19467
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [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
- [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 !5183
|
| | | | |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Update the health_check gem to the latest release
## What does this MR do?
Update the health_check gem to the latest release, which allows us to drop some of our code for overwriting the email check
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [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 !5186
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This allows us to drop our disable email config override
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
api: expose {should,force}_remove_source_branch
## What does this MR do?
Exposes the `should_remove_source_branch` and `force_remove_source_branch` booleans via the API.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I don't think so.
## Why was this MR needed?
See the commit message.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
N/A
## Screenshots (if relevant)
N/A
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [x] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] 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)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5184
|
| | |/ / /
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Workflows which use a bot to merge should remove branches if requested.
Expose the flag so that bots can request know this.
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Display tooltip for "Copy to Clipboard" button
## What does this MR do?
Add a tooltip to the "Copy to Clipboard" button.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Nope.
## Why was this MR needed?
There was no tooltip.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
fixes #19640, #19682
## Screenshots
(wrong cursor is the fault of my screenshot program)
See merge request !5164
|
| | | |_|/
| |/| | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Optimize cross ref system notes check
## What does this MR do?
This MR optimizes system note visibility checking by memoizing the visible reference count, reducing the overhead of calling `Note#cross_reference_not_visible_for?`.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Note that since a cross reference message contains, "Mentioned in XYZ", we EXPECT that there is at least one reference. That's why using the ref count > 0 works.
## Why was this MR needed?
The previous implementation relied on `Note#cross_reference_not_visible_for?`, which essentially tries to render all the Markdown references in a system note
and only displays the note if the user can see the referring project. But this duplicated the work that Banzai::NotesRenderer was doing already. This shaves about 0.8 s
from the load time from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#19273
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [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
- [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 !5070
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
have been fully redacted and contain cross-project references.
The previous implementation relied on Note#cross_reference_not_visible_for?,
which essentially tries to render all the Markdown references in a system note
and only displays the note if the user can see the referring project. But this
duplicated the work that Banzai::NotesRenderer was doing already. Instead, for
each note we render, we memoize the number of visible user references and
use it later if it is available.
Improves #19273
|
| |\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Added day name to contributions calendar
## What does this MR do?
Adds the day name text into the contributions calendar tooltip.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #19367
## Screenshots (if relevant)
See merge request !5065
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Closes #19367
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Remove pinTo from Flash
## What does this MR do?
- replace `pinTo` of `Flash` by `parent` parameter in constructor
- move positioning of layout containers from CoffeeScript to layout files
- adjust styling of inline flash messages
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
- display of flash messages in general
## Why was this MR needed?
- allow finding and positioning flash message containers within layout files
- allow adding different CSS classes to flash containers within layout files (necessary for fixing #18908)
- allow multiple flash messages to be displayed at different places at the same time
- make inline flash messages look nicer
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
closes #18908, closes part of #18897
## Screenshots
### Inline flash message (before)
### Inline flash message (after)
### Other flash messages (after)
---
---
---
---
---
---
### This is possible now
See merge request !4854
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | |_|/ / / /
| |/| | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
[ci skip]
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | |_|_|_|_|/
| |/| | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Fix problems with events under notes importing GitLab projects
Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19588
See merge request !5154
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | |\ \ \ \ \
| | | | |_|_|/
| | | |/| | |
| | | | | | | |
fix/import-event-error
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
sub_relations method recursively.
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Single file diffs
Closes #14103. Related (not part of this MR): #19553.
This adds a `diff_for_path` action to each place we render diffs (commit, compare, new MR, existing MR) which renders the diff for a single path. The action is always available with the same params as the 'parent' action, to make it simpler to generate the URIs.
If a diff is bigger than 10 KB, it will be collapsed by default and have a data attribute added. You can then click the message or the filename to expand that diff. For expanded files, you can collapse and expand them, but they won't make any AJAX requests.
See merge request !4990
|
| | | |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | |/ / / /
| | | |/| | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
When rendering a list of diff files, skip those where the diff is over
10 KB and provide an endpoint to render individually instead.
|
| | | |/ / / / /
| |/| | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
It is already part of ProjectEntity.
|
