Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/34560
explanation of the bug in the issue
setting `issue.isLabelsLoaded = false` before calling `deleteIssueLabel`
guarantee we will load the new state of the labels into the issue object
before sending it in the webhook.
Previously, pressing the down arrow key on the last item of a list would
incorrectly load the latest page when not release key. This commit
corrects the logic to ensure that the next page is loaded as intended.
`GetIssuesLastCommitStatus` will revoke `GetIssuesAllCommitStatus` but
it has been invoked. The `CommitStatus` template variable has never been
used in notification subscription page so that it could be removed.
Similar to #34544, this PR changes the `opts` argument in
`SearchRepositoryByName()` to be passed by value instead of by pointer,
as its mutations do not escape the function scope and are not used
elsewhere. This simplifies reasoning about the function and avoids
unnecessary pointer usage.
This insight emerged during an initial attempt to refactor
`RenderUserSearch()`, which currently intermixes multiple concerns.
---------
Co-authored-by: Philip Peterson <philip-peterson@users.noreply.github.com>
This fixes 3 issues I encountered when debugging problems with our LDAP sync:
1. The comparison of the hashed image data in `IsUploadAvatarChanged` is
wrong. It seems to be from before avatar hashing was changed and unified
in #22289. This results in the function always returning `true` for any
avatars, even if they weren't changed.
2. Even if there's no avatar to upload (i.e. no avatar available for the
LDAP entry), the upload function would still be called for every single
user, only to then fail, because the data isn't valid. This is
unnecessary.
3. Another small issue is that the comparison function (and thus hashing
of data) is called for every user, even if there is no avatar attribute
configured at all for the LDAP source. Thus, I switched the condition
nesting, so that no cycles are wasted when avatar sync isn't configured
in the first place.
I also added a trace log for when there is actually a new avatar being
uploaded for an existing user, which is now only shown when that is
actually the case.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
If the message from form.MergeMessageField is empty, we will miss a "\n"
between the title and the "Co-authored-by:" line. The title and message
should have a blank line between of them.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fix the issue where the line-button fails to work after selecting a file
from the file tree.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR adds "View workflow file" to Actions list page, and replaces the
redundant link.
Related #34530
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR changes the `opts` argument in `SearchUsers()` to be passed by
value instead of by pointer, as its mutations do not escape the function
scope and are not used elsewhere. This simplifies reasoning about the
function and avoids unnecessary pointer usage.
This insight emerged during an initial attempt to refactor
`RenderUserSearch()`, which currently intermixes multiple concerns.
Co-authored-by: Philip Peterson <philip-peterson@users.noreply.github.com>
- Change CreateVariable API response status from 204 No Content to 201
Created
- Update related integration tests to expect 201 Created instead of 204
No Content
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
Change the response status code of the Create Variable API under both
Org and Repo levels to `201` instead of 204.
API SDK: https://gitea.com/gitea/go-sdk/pulls/713
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
postgres 12 is end of life since 6 months. 13 and above are still
supported but I think it's overall better if we test a more recent
version of postgres because that's what new users will be running on.
Ref: https://endoflife.date/postgresql
The tags synchronization is very slow for a non-mirror repository with
many tags especially forking. This PR make all repositories' tags
synchronization use the same function and remove the low performance
synchronization function. The commit count of tag now will not be stored
into database when syncing. Since the commits count will always be read
from cache or git data, the `NumCommits` in the release table will be
updated for the first read from git data.
* repository deletion, delete ephemeral runners with active tasks as
well skips regular cleanup
* user deletion, delete ephemeral runners with active tasks as well
skips regular cleanup
* delete ephemeral runners once status changes to done
* You no longer see used ephemeral runners after the task is done
* if you see one the cron job takes care of it
- Add support for filtering commits by date range via new "since" and
"until" parameters
- Update API endpoints and command logic to handle the new parameters
for fetching commits within given dates
- Extend API documentation and Swagger specs to describe the new "since"
and "until" query parameters
- Refactor related function signatures and implementations to accept and
pass "since" and "until" values
---------
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
This PR changes 3rd party notifications wording on a PR review that
requests changes and can be considered a follow up for #5858 to also fix
#5857 in 3rd party notifications.
The difference in the actual notification would be the following:
```diff
- Pull request review rejected
+ Pull request review changes requested
```
While this is a simple string change at first look, it has a deeper UX
meaning.
# Motivation
We could observe that some developers are hesitant to press the "Request
changes" button since their peers first see that their changes were
rejected, thus a more appropriate wording that also falls in line with
the meaning and UI would be beneficial.
## Meaning
Pressing the `Request changes` button in a PR review means that as a
reviewer you are willing to merge the general change in a PR if changes
requested review comments are implemented.
Rejecting a PR on the other hand would be equivalent with closing it
since that change isn't welcome at all (e.g. out of scope feature).
## Sync with UI
The UI button says `request changes` and the other options
## Considered Problems
This might break some automation for users who rely on string matching.
