| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 9ca633eb4c62231e4ddff5466c723cf8e2bdb25d, reversing
changes made to fb229bbf7970ba908962b837b270adf56f14098f.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Dropdown loading time preformance fix
## What does this MR do?
Optimizes the performance of the dropdown load time by just sending the required data to load the dropdown instead of the full object
This MR aims to fix #17474
See merge request !5113
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
basicprojectsdetails and changes the url to a more reader friendly format
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
format
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
basicprojectsdetails and changes the url to a more reader friendly format
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1. Don't use case statements for dispatch anymore. This leads to a lot
of duplication, and makes the logic harder to follow.
2. Remove duplicated logic.
- For example, the `can_push_to_branch?` exists, but we also have a
different way of checking the same condition within `change_access_check`.
- This kind of duplication is removed, and the `can_push_to_branch?`
method is used in both places.
3. Move checks returning true/false to `UserAccess`.
- All public methods in `GitAccess` now return an instance of
`GitAccessStatus`. Previously, some methods would return
true/false as well, which was confusing.
- It makes sense for these kinds of checks to be at the level of a
user, so the `UserAccess` class was repurposed for this. The prior
`UserAccess.allowed?` classmethod is converted into an instance
method.
- All external uses of these checks have been migrated to use the
`UserAccess` class
4. Move the "change_access_check" into a separate class.
- Create the `GitAccess::ChangeAccessCheck` class to run these
checks, which are quite substantial.
- `ChangeAccessCheck` returns an instance of `GitAccessStatus` as
well.
5. Break out the boolean logic in `ChangeAccessCheck` into `if/else`
chains - this seems more readable.
6. I can understand that this might look like overkill for !4892, but I
think this is a good opportunity to clean it up.
- http://martinfowler.com/bliki/OpportunisticRefactoring.html
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
|/
|
|
| |
It is already part of ProjectEntity.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
responsibility to other classes
|
|
|
|
| |
consistent
|
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Add Todos API
* Closes #14068
* Closes #14675
- [x] Implementation
- [x] Tests
- [x] Documentation
- [x] Changelog
See merge request !3188
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Ensure that branch and tag names are given in API
## What does this MR do?
It ensures that the tag or branch name is given. @rymai We talked in an earlier MR about this.
See merge request !5012
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1. Return 404 if commit is not found (RESTful resource not found)
2. Return an empty array if pipeline is not found (resource present, no
associated builds found)
3. Return an empty array if pipeline found but no builds there (resource
present, no associated builds)
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
rely only on IssuesFinder
docs and changelog
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
GitLab CI Yaml template dropdown
## What does this MR do?
Make it possible to select a dropdown for an easy start with GitLab CI.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #17521
## TODO
- [ ] Backend
- [x] CHANGELOG item
- [x] Fix rubocop failure
- [x] API Support
- [x] New tests
- [x] Add disclaimer to the top of the gitlab-ci.yml
- [ ] Frontend
- [x] New tests
See merge request !4411
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This commit builds on the groundwork in
ee008e300b1ec0abcc90e6a30816ec0754cea0dd, which refactored the backend
so the same code could be used for new dropdowns. In this commit its
used for templates for the `.gitlab-ci.yml` files.
|