- 01 Aug, 2016 36 commits
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
webhooks: include old revision in MR update events ## What does this MR do? Includes the old revision for an MR in webhooks. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? The docs do not give an example `update` hook; should I add one? ## Why was this MR needed? In order to keep web hook listeners stateless, it helps to include the previous revision of the MR in the hook so that it does not need to remember the last revision (which may also be wrong in case of missed or out-of-order events due to previous errors). ## 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 - [ ] [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 !5535
-
Douwe Maan authored
Use fewer queries for CI charts ## What does this MR do? It reduces number of queries sent for aggregating counts for CI graphs. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? N/A ## Why was this MR needed? For this project (gitlab-ce), loading `/graphs/master/ci` is so slow it times out eventually. I did a quick benchmarking on production and found that it can take 72.5 seconds to only load the controller action variables (there are queries done from the view, didn't look into those). This MR reduces the time to about 2.5 seconds. Extra improvement could be done by introducing an index on `gl_project_id` and `created_at` for `ci_builds` table, but I can't confirm that right now. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? #20262 ## 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 - ~~[ ] [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~~ - [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 !5502
-
Jacob Schatz authored
Line tooltip up with icon ## What does this MR do? Lines up tooltip with CI icon ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #20294 ## Screenshots (if relevant)  See merge request !5508
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
API methods should be documented using Grape's DSL ## What does this MR do? Document that we should now document API methods using Grape DSL too. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/2397#note_13491048 for the discussion. See merge request !5594
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix search results for notes without commits part of #20063  See merge request !5571
-
Fatih Acet authored
Pipelines/Builds updates ## What does this MR do? Adds branch/tag icons in admin view; increase min-width of builds tables ## What are the relevant issue numbers? #20139 ## Screenshots (if relevant) Branch icons:  Reduce `icon-container` width, before:  Reduce `icon-container` width, after:  See merge request !5527
-
Ben Boeckel authored
-
Felipe Artur authored
-
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix timing problems running imports on production Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/151 I've found out that in staging, the imported file is not copied fully by the time sidekiq runs the job, this should hopefully fix it. (Tested against staging). See merge request !5523
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix attr reader to force the intended values for source and target shas ## What does this MR do? When importing a pull request from GitHub, the old and new branches may no longer actually exist by those names, but we need to recreate the merge request diff with the right source and target shas. We use these `target_branch_sha` and `source_branch_sha` attributes to force these to the intended values. But the reader methods were always looking up to the target/source branch head instead of check if these values was previously set, this MR applies a memoization pattern to both of them. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? This [commit](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/commit/6ce25e7b4caa9e94de74378729178c7060d640b2) introduced this bug in the importer. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#20385 ## 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) - [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) /cc @akitaonrails @DouweM See merge request !5573
-
Yorick Peterse authored
Gitlab::Metrics.current_transaction needs to be public for RailsQueueDuration See merge request !5592
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Changed grant_type=AUTHORIZATION_CODE for grant_type=authorization_code ## What does this MR do? Changed grant_type=AUTHORIZATION_CODE for grant_type=authorization_code ## Why was this MR needed? Using the example when provided the parameter grant_type=AUTHORIZATION_CODE the server returns a error: ```json {"error":"unsupported_grant_type","error_description":"The authorization grant type is not supported by the authorization server."} ``` See merge request !5539 -
James Lopez authored
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Trim extra displayed carriage returns in diffs and files with CRLFs ## What does this MR do? This MR strips out extra carriage returns at the end of each tokenized string. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? Does this remove more than we need? ## Why was this MR needed? Windows users would see extra lines in their files. Newline characters are already added with every line in the HTML formatter. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? #20440, gitlab-com/support-forum#892, #20468 ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry 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) - [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 !5588
-
Paco Guzman authored
-
Yorick Peterse authored
Avoid line_code and position calculation on line partial for plain view See merge request !5591
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Sensible state specific default sort order for issues and merge requests ## What does this MR do? It provides more sensible default sort order for issues and merge requests based on the following table: | type | state | default sort order | |----------------|--------|--------------------| | issues | open | last created | | issues | closed | last updated | | issues | all | last created | | merge requests | open | last created | | merge requests | merged | last updated | | merge requests | closed | last updated | | merge requests | all | last created | ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? All the bits where `id_desc` was changed to `created_desc`. I hope it's okay, It makes more sense in my opinion. ## Why was this MR needed? Prior to this MR the issues and merge request were sorted based on `id_desc` by default. This MR aims to make the interface more user-friendly by providing state specific sorting defaults most users would expect. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? See #15064 See merge request !5453 -
Rémy Coutable authored
Signed-off-by:Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
Stan Hu authored
Closes #20440
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix Importing labels and milestones associations - Import/Export Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19510 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19447 - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry 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 !5426
-
Paco Guzman authored
-
zs authored
Provide more sensible default sort order for issues and merge requests based on the following table: | type | state | default sort order | |----------------|--------|--------------------| | issues | open | last created | | issues | closed | last updated | | issues | all | last created | | merge requests | open | last created | | merge requests | merged | last updated | | merge requests | closed | last updated | | merge requests | all | last created |
-
James Lopez authored
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Add an URL field to Enviroments ## What does this MR do? Adds a field to the `enviroments` table to expose later in other features. Now I see the task list below, I noticed I forgot some minor things, but Ill adress those after the first review. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? The field is a string on the database, thus limited to 255 chars, which seems more than enough. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #19527 ## Screenshots (if relevant)  ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added - [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] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) See merge request !5469
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Make "New issue" button in Issue page less obtrusive ## What does this MR do? Replace green background of "New issue" button on issue page by green border and text. ## Why was this MR needed? Every issue page has two green buttons—Comment and New Issue. - New Issue is not directly content related and less likely to be used. - [UI Guide] says > Use green or blue button for primary action. Primary button should be only one. [UI Guide]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/ui_guide.md ## What are the relevant issue numbers? fixes #20186 ## Screenshots ### Before  ### After  See merge request !5457
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
Clarify CI script needing to quote colons ## What does this MR do? Clarifies documentation for `.gitlab-ci.yml` `script`. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? Should this be a note? Is there a link to YAML spec we can point to? ## Why was this MR needed? ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #20177. ## Screenshots (if relevant) See merge request !5481
-
James Lopez authored
squashed - fixed label and milestone association problems, updated specs and refactored reader class a bit
-
James Lopez authored
-
James Lopez authored
added changelog fix specs refactored code based on feedback fix rubocop warning
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
Update start-using-git.md to reflect that merges to master can be made from either the master or the named branch. ## What does this MR do? The documentation is incorrect in stating that you need to be in the named branch in order to merge to master. You can be in master and merge the named branch, too. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? Yes ## Why was this MR needed? This MR is needed to correct an inaccuracy in the documentation. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? N/A ## Screenshots (if relevant) N/A ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? It is only a documentation change, so mostly this is not applicable. - [ ] [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 [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) See merge request !5404
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
Clarify backup_keep_time config parameter with S3 Discussed in gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab#1453 See merge request !5567
-
Z.J. van de Weg authored
-
Stan Hu authored
Improve spinach test to be more specific about link to click If you add another branch to gitlab-test that includes the word 'test', browse_files.feature will fail with an ambiguous match. See merge request !5589
-
Stan Hu authored
If you add another branch to gitlab-test that includes the word 'test', browse_files.feature will fail with an ambiguous match.
-
Stan Hu authored
Ignore invalid IPs in X-Forwarded-For when trusted proxies are configured. ## What does this MR do? Catches IPAddr::InvalidAddressError exceptions in `trusted_proxy?` when a) a trusted proxy is set up in the gitlab config and b) an invalid IP address is passed to the method (e.g. one with a port attached). When caught, returns `false` from the method. Prevents a 500 error in this situation. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#20466. ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [X] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added - [N/A] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md) - [N/A] 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 !5584
-
- 31 Jul, 2016 4 commits
-
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
When importing a pull request from GitHub, the old and new branches may no longer actually exist by those names, but we need to recreate the merge request diff with the right source and target shas. We use these `target_branch_sha` and `source_branch_sha` attributes to force these to the intended values. But the reader methods were always looking up to the target/source branch head instead of check if these values was previously set.
-
lookatmike authored
-
