| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Expose more info for SystemHooks
See merge request !6964
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Now exposed:
- push_events
- tag_push_events
- enable_ssl_verification
- token
Fixes gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#23307
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This MR adds support for the `token` attribute in the project hook API.
Feature requested on a dependant project: https://github.com/gpocentek/python-gitlab/issues/170
See merge request !7220
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
The UI allows to define a token to validate payload on the target URL,
this patch adds the feature to the API.
|
| |/ / |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
GrapeDSL for branches endpoints
No changelog item as it doesn't change behaviour
Cherry-picket from !6330
See merge request !6630
|
| | |/ |
|
| |\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Fix lightweight tags not processed correctly by GitTagPushService
## What does this MR do?
Fix lightweight tags not processed correctly by GitTagPushService
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No
## Why was this MR needed?
Lightweight tags were being processed incorrectly, causing tag triggers to receive wrong information and not function properly.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [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 [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] 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)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #22271
See merge request !6532
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
When we updated gitlab_git to 10.4.1, `tag.target` changed from pointing
to the sha of the tag to the sha of the commit the tag points to. The
problem is that only annotated tags have `object_sha`s, lightweight tags
don't (it's nil), so (only) in their case we still need to use
`tag.target`.
|
| |\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Make internal api work with full repo path and name
## What does this MR do?
Make internal api work with full repo path and name
## Why was this MR needed?
So we can pass full repository path on filesystem from gitlab-shell instead of extracted one. We need this for nested groups support where project is can be nested under several groups.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/2772
See merge request !7148
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Zaporozhets <dmitriy.zaporozhets@gmail.com>
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Zaporozhets <dmitriy.zaporozhets@gmail.com>
|
| |/
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
control flow.
When adding a deploy key that already exists in the project the existing key would not be returned, resulting in an attempt to create a new one, which in turn caused a 500 error due to an ActiveRecord exception.
When adding a deploy key that exists within another project the key would be joined to the project, but would also attempt to create a new one, which resulted in a 400 error due to the key already existing.
Fixes #22741
Fixes #21754
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Grapify tags API
## What does this MR do?
Add the Grape-DSL to the tags API.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
The delete endpoint only has a description but no success entity because we don't have one. We only return the branch name as JSON. Should I do something else?
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
See merge request !6860
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Grapify the labels API
Add the Grape-DSL to the labels API. Since the input validation messages are checked, two tests are modified slightly.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
See merge request !7070
|
| | | | |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Grapify builds API
## What does this MR do?
Add the Grape-DSL to the builds API.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
The artifacts API directly downloads a file rather then returning a JSON entity.
See merge request !6877
|
| | |/ / |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
- Pass `developers_and_merge` and `developers_can_push` in `params`
instead of using keyword arguments.
- Refactor a slightly complex boolean check to a simple `nil?` check.
|
| | | | |
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
1. Previously, we were not removing existing access levels before
creating new ones. This is not a problem for EE, but _is_ for CE,
since we restrict the number of access levels in CE to 1.
2. The correct approach is:
CE -> delete all access levels before updating a protected branch
EE -> delete developer access levels if "developers_can_{merge,push}" is switched off
3. The dispatch is performed by checking if a "length: 1" validation is
present on the access levels or not.
4. Another source of problems was that we didn't put multiple queries in
a transaction. If the `destroy_all` passes, but the `update` fails,
we should have a rollback.
5. Modifying the API to provide users direct access to CRUD access
levels will make things a lot simpler.
6. Create `create/update` services separately for this API, which
perform the necessary data translation, before calling the regular
`create/update` services. The translation code was getting too large
for the API endpoint itself, so this move makes sense.
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Grapify the commit status API
## What does this MR do?
Add the Grape-DSL to the commit status API.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
See merge request !6879
|
| | | | |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
API: Fix Sytem hooks delete behavior
## What does this MR do?
This corrects the delete API for system hooks. Returning 200 is not the right way indicating a hooks is not found.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Discussed in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/6861/diffs#609af00c90e3d5241064d1404e3e018a3235634a_64_62
See merge request !6883
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |/ / /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Grapify boards API
## What does this MR do?
Add the Grape-DSL to the boards API.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
See merge request !6876
|
| | |/ / |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Grapify todos API
## What does this MR do?
Add the Grape-DSL to the todos API.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
See merge request !6875
|
| | |/ / |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Grapify system hooks API
## What does this MR do?
Add the Grape-DSL to the system-hook API.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Related to #22928
See merge request !6861
|
| | |/ / |
|
| |\ \ \
| |/ /
|/| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Sort API mounts
## What does this MR do?
Sort the API mounts.
## Why was this MR needed?
The API mounts are unsorted.
See merge request !6831
|
| | | | |
|
| |\ \ \
| |_|/
|/| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Refactoring Issues Board
## What does this MR do?
This MR aims to minimize conflicts between the CE issues board feature with EE multiple boards feature.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
To avoid a lot of conflicts with EE multiple boards feature.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] ~~[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)~~
- [x] API support added
- Tests
- [X] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [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)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/929
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/1084
See merge request !6727
|
