Currently this feature is only available to admins, but there is no
clear reason why. If a user can actually merge pull requests, then this
seems fine as well.
This is useful in situations where direct pushes to the repository are
commonly done by developers.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Due to a bug in the GitLab API, the diff_refs field is populated in the
response when fetching an individual merge request, but not when
fetching a list of them. That field is used to populate the merge base
commit SHA.
While there is detection for the merge base even when not populated by
the downloader, that detection is not flawless. Specifically, when a
GitLab merge request has a single commit, and gets merged with the
squash strategy, the base branch will be fast-forwarded instead of a
separate squash or merge commit being created. The merge base detection
attempts to find the last commit on the base branch that is also on the
PR branch, but in the fast-forward case that is the PR's only commit.
Assuming the head commit is also the merge base results in the import of
a PR with 0 commits and no diff.
This PR uses the individual merge request endpoint to fetch merge
request data with the diff_refs field. With its data, the base merge
commit can be properly set, which—by not relying on the detection
mentioned above—correctly imports PRs that were "merged" by
fast-forwarding the base branch.
ref: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/29620
Before this PR, the PR migration code populates Gitea's MergedCommitID
field by using GitLab's merge_commit_sha field. However, that field is
only populated when the PR was merged using a merge strategy. When a
squash strategy is used, squash_commit_sha is populated instead.
Given that Gitea does not keep track of merge and squash commits
separately, this PR simply populates Gitea's MergedCommitID by using
whichever field is present in the GitLab API response.
Some translations are duplicated for the same package fields; it should
be possible to use the same approach. Checked packages to use the same
forms in templates.
1. Removed repeated translations for the same fields
2. Linked template files to the same translation fields
3. Added repository site link for nuget packages
* Show checkout instructions also when there is no permission to push,
for anyone who wants to locally test the changes.
* First checkout the branch exactly as is, without immediately having to
solve merge conflicts. Leave this to the merge step, since it's often
convenient to test a change without worrying about this.
* Use `git fetch -u`, so an existing local branch is updated when
re-testing the same pull request. But not the more risky `git fetch -f`
in to handle force pushes, as we don't want to accidentally overwrite
important local changes.
* Show different merge command depending on the chosen merge style,
interactively updated.
See https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27718#issuecomment-1773743014
. Add a test to ensure its behavior.
Why this test uses `ProjectBoardID=0`? Because in `SearchOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means what it is. But in `IssueOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means there is no condition, and
`ProjectBoardID=db.NoConditionID` means the board ID = 0.
It's really confusing. Probably it's better to separate the db search
engine and the other issue search code. It's really two different
systems. As far as I can see, `IssueOptions` is not necessary for most
of the code, which has very simple issue search conditions.
This PR will show the _noreply_ address in the privacy popup
_keep_email_private_popup_.
I had to look into the source code to figure out which E-Mail Adress I
had to use on gitea.com to hide it from public access.
According to the contribution guidelines I only updated the en-US
translation file.
Co-authored-by: Hakito <hakito@git.example.com>
Hello there,
Cargo Index over HTTP is now prefered over git for package updates: we
should not force users who do not need the GIT repo to have the repo
created/updated on each publish (it can still be created in the packages
settings).
The current behavior when publishing is to check if the repo exist and
create it on the fly if not, then update it's content.
Cargo HTTP Index does not rely on the repo itself so this will be
useless for everyone not using the git protocol for cargo registry.
This PR only disable the creation on the fly of the repo when publishing
a crate.
This is linked to #26844 (error 500 when trying to publish a crate if
user is missing write access to the repo) because it's now optional.
---------
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
When hitting the `enter` key to create a new project column, the request
is sent twice because the `submit` event and `key up` event are both
triggered.
Probably a better solution is to rewrite these parts of the code to
avoid using native jQuery but reuse the `form-fetch-action` class. But
it's beyond my ability.
Per the discussion on #22054, the flow for adding a new team member to
an org is not intuitive for new Gitea users.
The ideal solution would be to add a new button on the Org > Members
index view (see the screenshot mockup in the issue description).
However, this would require a refactor of the UX for the flow. The
current flow has an implicit context of which team within the org the
new member is being added to ('Owners' by default). From the Members
index, there is no implicit context; the flow would have to add a picker
for which team the new member should be added to.
So, as a stopgap, this change simply adds a button to the Teams index
page that performs the same action as clicking on the title of the team
(a behavior that is currently too obscure as indicated in the comments
on the issue). This should reduce support burden and serve as a decent
temporary measure until the Add Member flow is refactored.
---------
Co-authored-by: tomholford <tomholford@users.noreply.github.com>
1. remove unused function `MoveIssueAcrossProjectBoards`
2. extract the project board condition into a function
3. use db.NoCondition instead of -1. (BTW, the usage of db.NoCondition
is too confusing. Is there any way to avoid that?)
4. remove the unnecessary comment since the ctx refactor is completed.
5. Change `b.ID != 0` to `b.ID > 0`. It's more intuitive but I think
they're the same since board ID can't be negative.
