Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/30428
---
Conflict resolution: trivial and move test to own subtest run directly
after `Normal`.
(cherrypicked commit 9466fec879f4f2c88c7c1e7a5cffba319282ab66)
When visiting a repos `/settings/units` page, highlight the active tab
properly: "Add more..." if the tab is displayed, or "Settings"
otherwise.
Fixes #3188.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
* Split TestPullRequest out of AddTestPullRequestTask
* A Created field is added to the Issue table
* The Created field is set to the time (with nano resolution) on creation
* Record the nano time repo_module.PushUpdateOptions is created by the hook
* The decision to update a pull request created before a commit was
pushed is based on the time (with nano resolution) the git hook
was run and the Created field
It ensures the following happens:
* commit C is pushed
* the git hook queues AddTestPullRequestTask for processing and returns with success
* TestPullRequest is not called yet
* a pull request P with commit C as the head is created
* TestPullRequest runs and ignores P because it was created after the commit was received
When the "created" column is NULL, no verification is done, pull
requests that were created before the column was created in the
database cannot be newer than the latest call to a git hook.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
close #27801
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
(cherry picked from commit 62b073e6f31645e446c7e8d6b5a506f61b47924e)
Conflicts:
- modules/util/util.go
Trivial resolution, only picking the newly introduced function
- routers/api/v1/swagger/options.go
Trivial resolution. We don't have UserBadges, don't pick that part.
- templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl
Regenerated.
- Fix a crash in the issue forms, because `ctx.Ctx` was trying to be
accessed, however this is not set in all contexts thus could result to NPE.
- Adds integration test.
- Resolves #3011
- Currently the parsing of the push options require that `=` is present
in the value, however we shouldn't be that strict and assume if that's
not set the value is `true`.
- This allow for more natural commands, so become `-o force-push=true`
simply `-o force-push`.
- Add unit test.
Now, the chars `=:;()[]{}~!@#$%^ &` are possible as well
Fixes #30134
---------
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
(cherry picked from commit 1ad48f781eb0681561b083b49dfeff84ba51f2fe)
- Currently protected branch rules do not apply to admins, however in
some cases (like in the case of Forgejo project) you might also want to
apply these rules to admins to avoid accidental merges.
- Add new option to configure this on a per-rule basis.
- Adds integration tests.
- Resolves #65
Fixes: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/29981. Introduce
`.secondary-nav` as a universal way for styling and margin adjustments
inside `.page-content`.
If the first child of `.page-content` is `.secondary-nav`, we add margin
below it, otherwise we add padding to the first child. Notable changes:
- `--color-header-wrapper` is replaced with `--color-secondary-nav-bg`.
- `navbar` class is removed.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
---
Conflict resolution: Trivial conflict & changed selector to reflect new
classes.
Ref: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2776
(cherry picked from commit 3ccda41a539b8ba7841919ee12dc2877ddc03818)
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28297
This PR also fixed a problem that it needs a database transaction when
removing the WIP title.
---
Resolves #2771
Also partially ports gitea#29783
(cherry picked from commit 17d7ab5ad4ce3d0fbc1251572c22687c237a30b1)
The fix against the race incorrectly assumes the sha of the commit being
pushed belongs to the base repository. It finds the highest possible
pull request ID from the head repository instead of looking it up in
the base repository.
Figuring out if a PR was created in the future based on the highest
index of the base repository would require collecting all of them
because there is no way to know in advance which repository may be
involved in the race.
Fixing this race can be done either by:
* Introducing a new field in the pull_request table https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2842
which feels more like a hack than a real solution
* Refactoring the logic
which would be a significant undertaking
The race has been in the codebase for a very long time and manifests
itself in the CI, when events happen in quick succession. The only
concrete manifestation was however fixed by https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Since this race now only exists in theory and not in practice, let's
revert this bugous commit until a proper solution is implemented.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2817
This reverts commit 036f1eddc5.
Conflicts:
services/pull/pull.go
- Currently it's possible to modify remote references such as
`refs/pull/<idx>/head` and `refs/heads/<branch>`.
- Disallow that the pull request reference is deleted, as this should
not be at the control of the user. Doing so would result in
inconsistencies within Forgejo and lead to internal server errors when
trying access the pull request, this action should be reserved for
Forgejo.
- Do this by utilizing the `update` hook, which process each reference
individually and therefore allow to only skip deleting internal
references and still allow other modifications that is being done in
the same push.
- Ref: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1517
also bleve did match on fuzzy search and the other way around. this also fix that bug.
(cherry picked from commit b9c57fb78e8e0d80d786d8e1da433b6c7ebf2f1c)
Conflicts:
tests/integration/repo_search_test.go
simple conflict resolution in the tests
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/30005. Regression from
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/29945.
There was only once instance of `tw-content-center` before that PR, so I
just ran below command and reverted that one instance.
```sh
perl -p -i -e 's#tw-content-center#tw-items-center#g' web_src/js/**/* templates/**/* models/**/* tests/**/*
```
(cherry picked from commit 04f9ad056882fc3f21b247b16f84437adf0f36d8)
Conflicts:
templates/repo/diff/conversation.tmpl
templates/repo/header.tmpl
templates/repo/issue/filter_list.tmpl
templates/repo/issue/view_content/conversation.tmpl
templates/repo/wiki/view.tmpl
web_src/js/components/DashboardRepoList.vue
re-ran the command after discarding the Gitea changes to
ensure all Forgejo files are also covered
This PR will avoid load pullrequest.Issue twice in pull request list
page. It will reduce x times database queries for those WIP pull
requests.
Partially fix #29585
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit 62f8174aa2fae1481c7e17a6afcb731a5b178cd0)
Conflicts:
models/activities/notification_list.go
moved to models/activities/notification.go
5143ebb507 Add rel="nofollow" to issue filter links
has a test that fails because it assumes the link starts with the link
where it now starts with a ?
In HTML, `?key=val` already means "use the current link with new query parameters"
(cherry picked from commit 4c476fa41dc29dc24afda0925023ae3d0b9707cd)
Conflicts:
templates/repo/issue/filter_list.tmpl
templates/shared/issuelist.tmpl
trivial context conflict because the lines in Forgejo have rel=nofollow
Regression of #29493. If a branch has been deleted, repushing it won't
restore it.
Lunny may have noticed that, but I didn't delve into the comment then
overlooked it:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/29493#discussion_r1509046867
The additional comments added are to explain the issue I found during
testing, which are unrelated to the fixes.
(cherry picked from commit f371f84fa3456c2a71470632b6458d81e4892a54)
Fix #29731
Caused by #24634
Also remove fixme.
ps: we can not fix the existed runs, as wrong refs are all recorded in
DB, and we can not know whether they are branch or tag:
(cherry picked from commit 98217b034076157547cf688cc10f47cd3275c872)
Conflicts:
tests/integration/actions_trigger_test.go
there is a need for more imports because the exist tests
are done differently, using CreateDeclarativeRepo
- If a branch cannot be renamed due to a protected branch rule, show
this error in the UI instead of throwing an internal server error.
- Add integration test (also simplify the existing one).
- Resolves #2751
