| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Attempting to generate default set of labels would result in
an error:
ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 0)
Closes #23649
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Fix project member access levels
Migrate invalid project members (owner -> master)
Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/18616
See merge request !6957
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Use iid deployment refs
This fixes the 404, because `find_by` will return nil instead of throwing an error.
See merge request !7021
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Add group level labels
## What does this MR do?
Add group level labels.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
* `LabelsFinder`
* `Gitlab::Gfm::ReferenceRewriter`
* `Banzai::Filter::LabelReferenceFilter`
## Why was this MR needed?
We'll be adding more feature that allow you to do cross-project management of issues.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
* Group Labels
* Project Labels
* Expanded references for group labels when moving issue to another project
## 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)
- [x] API support added
- Tests
- [x] 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)
- [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?
#19997
See merge request !6425
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | |/ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Zaporozhets <dmitriy.zaporozhets@gmail.com>
|
| |/
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Zaporozhets <dmitriy.zaporozhets@gmail.com>
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When reading conflicts:
1. Add a `type` field. `text` works as before, and has `sections`;
`text-editor` is a file with ambiguous conflict markers that can only
be resolved in an editor.
2. Add a `content_path` field pointing to a JSON representation of the
file's content for a single file.
3. Hitting `content_path` returns a similar datastructure to the `file`,
but without the `content_path` and `sections` fields, and with a
`content` field containing the full contents of the file (with
conflict markers).
When writing conflicts:
1. Instead of `sections` being at the top level, they are now in a
`files` array. This matches the read format better.
2. The `files` array contains file hashes, each of which must contain:
a. `new_path`
b. `old_path`
c. EITHER `sections` (which works as before) or `content` (with the
full content of the resolved file).
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Use defined colour for a language when available
## What does this MR do?
This MR changes the colours of the different languages in the language graph. It now uses the colour set in Linguist instead of the first six characters of the SHA256'd language name where possible. If Linguist has no colour defined for a given language, it falls back to the old method of finding a colour.
I talked with @connorshea about creating this MR [on Twitter](https://twitter.com/connorjshea/status/784390886222286849) a few hours earlier. Here's also an older [tweet from May](https://twitter.com/nilsding/status/737018807223496708) where we discussed some possible improvements to the graph.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Hopefully none ;)
## Why was this MR needed?
Aesthetics.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
Before:
After:
## 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 it does - 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?
- #12455
See merge request !6748
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
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
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Removes inconsistency regarding tagging immediately as merged once you create a …
- [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
- [x] 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)
- [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)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #20708
See merge request !6408
|
| | | |/
| |/| |
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Respond with 404 Not Found for non-existent tags
## What does this MR do?
Handles the case when a non-existent tag is being viewed, and responds with 404 Not Found instead of 500 Internal Server Error.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
The small changes should be clear from a simple diff.
## Why was this MR needed?
To resolve the issue #22211.
## 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 [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)
- [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)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #22211
See merge request !6699
|
| | |\ \ \
| | | |/
| | |/| |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Non-existent tags should be handled with 404 Not Found.
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Ability to bulk assign issues to author of merge request
## What does this MR do?
Provides a link to auto-assign issues to the author of a merge request, when they are mentioned as being closed by the MR.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
To help avoid working on a MR without having assigned related issues to self
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Fixes #18876
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Tasks
- [x] Refactor or move away from using `BulkUpdateService`
- [x] ~~Consider alternate link message when only a subset of issues will be assigned~~
- [x] Minimize repeated calls to expensive `closes_issues` method
- [x] Move away from using inflector for pluralization and fix flash message
- [x] Change auth `before_action` and fallback to error flash message
- [x] Shouldn't overwrite current assignee if one exists
## 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
- [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 !5725
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \
| |_|_|/ /
|/| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Allow browsing branches that end with '.atom'
## What does this MR do?
1. Simplify the regex capture in the routing for the CommitsController
to not exclude the '.atom' suffix. That's a perfectly valid git
branch name, so we shouldn't blow up if we get it.
2. Because Rails now can't automatically detect the request format, add
some code to do so in `ExtractPath` when there is no path. This means
that, given branches 'foo' and 'foo.atom', the Atom feed for the
former is unroutable. To fix this: don't do that! Give the branches
different names!
## Why was this MR needed?
Creating a branch or tag name ending in '.atom' would cause some 500s on that repo.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #21955. Related to !5994.
See merge request !6750
|
| | | |_|/
| |/| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
We need to do two things to support this:
1. Simplify the regex capture in the routing for the CommitsController
to not exclude the '.atom' suffix. That's a perfectly valid git
branch name, so we shouldn't blow up if we get it.
2. Because Rails now can't automatically detect the request format, add
some code to do so in `ExtractPath` when there is no path. This means
that, given branches 'foo' and 'foo.atom', the Atom feed for the
former is unroutable. To fix this: don't do that! Give the branches
different names!
|
| |/ / / |
|
| |/ / |
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| |
|
|
| |
It toggles the 'WIP' prefix in the MR title.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
'21983-member-add_user-doesn-t-detect-existing-members-that-have-requested-access' into 'master'
Resolve "`Member.add_user`doesn't detect existing members that have requested access"
## What does this MR do?
This merge request handle the case when an access requester is added to a group or project (via the members page or the API).
In `Member.add_user`, if an access requester already exists, we simply accept their request (and set the `created_by`, `access_level` and `expires_at` attributes if given).
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I've taken the opportunity to cleanup the whole `{Group,Project}Member.add_user*` methods since it was quite a mess.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #21983
See merge request !6393
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Changes include:
- Ensure Member.add_user is not called directly when not necessary
- New GroupMember.add_users_to_group to have the same abstraction level as for Project
- Refactor Member.add_user to take a source instead of an array of members
- Fix Rubocop offenses
- Always use Project#add_user instead of project.team.add_user
- Factorize users addition as members in Member.add_users_to_source
- Make access_level a keyword argument in GroupMember.add_users_to_group and ProjectMember.add_users_to_projects
- Destroy any requester before adding them as a member
- Improve the way we handle access requesters in Member.add_user
Instead of removing the requester and creating a new member,
we now simply accepts their access request. This way, they will
receive a "access request granted" email.
- Fix error that was previously silently ignored
- Stop raising when access level is invalid in Member, let Rails validation do their work
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
|
| |/ |
|
