An error occurred fetching the project authors.
- 13 Jul, 2016 22 commits
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
Keeps issue number when importing from Gitlab.com ## What does this MR do? Keeps issue number when importing from `Gitlab.com` ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? No. ## Why was this MR needed? With these changes we doesn't loose the issue references when importing from `GitLab.com`. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #15235 /cc @cpm @jweerdt See merge request !5193
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
-
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre authored
With these changes we don’t lost the issue references when importing from `GitLab.com`.
-
Kamil Trzciński authored
Fix Knapsack report generation for Spinach ## What does this MR do? Makes Knapsack auto-balacing work for Spinach tests ## Why was this MR needed? We used wrong Knapsack adapter, thus making spinach to run split, but not auto-balanced tests for spinach. See merge request !5230
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Allow developers to merge into a protected branch without having push access ## What does this MR do? Adds a "Developers can merge" checkbox to protected branches much like the "Developers can push" checkbox. When the checkbox is enabled, a developer can merge MRs into that protected branch from the Web UI and from the command-line (any push that is entirely composed of merge commits is allowed). ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? - This MR refactors the `GitAccess` module, moving parts of it to `UserAccess` and the new `ChangeAccessCheck`. - This MR refactors `GitAccessSpec`, which generates a "matrix" of tests. - The main logic "developers can merge" should be straightforward enough. - The commits are fairly atomic, and the commit messages are descriptive regarding the motivations behind every change. ## Why was this MR needed? A significant portion of this feature was implemented in !4220 (thanks, @mvestergaard!) ; I'm wrapping it up. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? #18193 Closes #967 ## Screenshots ![1](/uploads/c636e88ba38628211754e7cf122b0dc4/1.png) ![2](/uploads/5ed1e7917e2f36853a479faa565b022a/2.png) ![3](/uploads/0d202ba42e8dc6aade7bc6ac8db41ee6/3.png) ## TODO - [ ] #18193 !4892 Add "developers can merge" as an option for protected branches - [x] Review existing code - [x] Fix build - [x] Implementation / refactoring - [x] Clean up `GitAccess` - [x] Clean up `protected_branches.js.coffee` - [x] Figure out authorization issue - If we try to merge code into a protected branch for a user who doesn't have access to that branch, an auth check will fail - We need to get around this, somehow - [x] Try detecting merge commits and allowing those - [x] A push with regular commits _and_ merge commits should fail - [x] Figure out a solution - [x] Extensive tests for `MergeCommitCheck` - [x] Add tests - [x] Untested parts of original MR - [x] Improve the checks in `/allowed` - @dzaporozhets's proposal: - commits in push == commits in merge request - branch to push == target branch of merge request - merge request has required amount of approves (ee only) - merge commit in push == merge commit we created when merged via UI - save merge commit sha in database and compare with `newrev` - my proposal - /allowed finds all open merge requests with the appropriate target branch - For each MR, compare the commit SHAs in the MR to the commit SHAs in the change set - If we have a match, compare the diff of the matching MR to the diff of the change set - If we still have a match, the merge is legit - [x] Wait for replies on my proposal - [x] Pick a strategy - [x] Implementation - [x] Save `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` - [x] Check `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` - [x] Clear `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` - [x] Test / refactor - [x] Merge conflicts - [x] Verify workflows - [x] Developer with 'developer can merge' on: - [x] Can merge an MR from the Web UI - [x] Error message for conflicts in the Web UI - [x] Cannot merge an MR from the command line (HTTP) - [x] Cannot merge an MR from the command line (SSH) - [x] Cannot modify the branch otherwise - [x] Developer with 'developer can merge' off: - [x] Cannot merge an MR from the Web UI - [x] Error message for conflicts in the Web UI - [x] Cannot merge an MR from the command line (HTTP) - [x] Cannot merge an MR from the command line (SSH) - [x] Cannot modify the branch otherwise - [x] New projects created could have have "Developers can merge" turned on automatically for the default branch - [x] CHANGELOG - [x] Fix build - [x] Wait for [build](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/commit/42624e3d53754064186d4ae9048e310d1d3eed0b/builds) to pass - [x] Screenshots - [x] Assign to endboss - [x] Respond to @dbalexandre's comments - [x] Duplicated line, this is equals to line 26. - [x] We aren't using any of these helpers in this migration, we can remove the include. - [x] What do you think to add a default value for this column to avoid the Three-state Boolean Problem? - [x] group all checks under Gitlab::Checks - [x] You have a default value for developers_can_merge column, but your migration doesn't add it. - [x] What do you think to rename Partially protected to anything else? - [x] Fix conflicts - [x] Make sure [build](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/commit/b1cfd42f20a78fd7f844288954e97cff32962e20/builds) passes - [ ] Wait for merge See merge request !4892
-
Rémy Coutable authored
ObjectRenderer doesn't crash when no objects to cache with Rails.cache.read_multi ## What does this MR do? Avoid calls to Rails.cache.read_multi without cache keys so it doesn't raise an exception ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #19766 ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [ ] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added. I considered is not needed is a fix over a RC - ~~[ ] [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 [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 !5229
-
Paco Guzman authored
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Fix typos, minor styling errors. 2. Use single quotes rather than double quotes in `user_access_spec`. 3. Test formatting.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/4892#note_12892160 - This is more consistent.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. If they are a developer with "Developers can Merge" switched on.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- Only send a param for the currently changed checkbox. - Have the controller use strong parameters correctly, so that the PATCH works as expected.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Don't use case statements for dispatch anymore. This leads to a lot of duplication, and makes the logic harder to follow. 2. Remove duplicated logic. - For example, the `can_push_to_branch?` exists, but we also have a different way of checking the same condition within `change_access_check`. - This kind of duplication is removed, and the `can_push_to_branch?` method is used in both places. 3. Move checks returning true/false to `UserAccess`. - All public methods in `GitAccess` now return an instance of `GitAccessStatus`. Previously, some methods would return true/false as well, which was confusing. - It makes sense for these kinds of checks to be at the level of a user, so the `UserAccess` class was repurposed for this. The prior `UserAccess.allowed?` classmethod is converted into an instance method. - All external uses of these checks have been migrated to use the `UserAccess` class 4. Move the "change_access_check" into a separate class. - Create the `GitAccess::ChangeAccessCheck` class to run these checks, which are quite substantial. - `ChangeAccessCheck` returns an instance of `GitAccessStatus` as well. 5. Break out the boolean logic in `ChangeAccessCheck` into `if/else` chains - this seems more readable. 6. I can understand that this might look like overkill for !4892, but I think this is a good opportunity to clean it up. - http://martinfowler.com/bliki/OpportunisticRefactoring.html
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. When a merge request is being merged, save the merge commit SHA in the `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` database column. 2. The `pre-receive` hook looks for any locked (in progress) merge request with `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` matching the `newrev` it is passed. 3. If it finds a matching MR, the merge is legitimate. 4. Update `git_access_spec` to test the behaviour we added here. Also refactored this spec a bit to make it easier to add more contexts / conditions.
-
Mathias Vestergaard authored
- Cherry-picked from `mvestergaard:branch-protection-dev-merge` - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/4220
-
Dmitriy Zaporozhets authored
-
Douwe Maan authored
Render inline diffs for multiple changed lines following eachother Before: ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_00.08.27](/uploads/b14664211e0f5cef6e77a78eadfcbcdf/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_00.08.27.png) After: ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_00.07.34](/uploads/567be631869a4867a2edf6ff7eda6369/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_00.07.34.png) See merge request !5174
-
Douwe Maan authored
-
- 12 Jul, 2016 18 commits
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
-
Douwe Maan authored
Delete award emoji when deleting a user ## What does this MR do? Fix the problem where a user's award emoji aren't deleted when the user is deleted. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? The corresponding SELECT for the migration runs in 0.3s on staging, but I can't test the delete there or on production easily. It should be reasonably quick. ## Why was this MR needed? There was a typo in an association
## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #19693. ## Screenshots (if relevant) Nope. ## 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~~ - [ ] 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 !5216 -
Jacob Schatz authored
Change running status color to blue; update icon to spinner ## What does this MR do? Changes running status color to blue Updates icon to spinner to differentiate from `pending` ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #17702 Part of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/18920 ## Screenshots (if relevant) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-12_at_4.34.48_PM](/uploads/8f6bb36a7a8fe99db1ec1ef8e9db6388/Screen_Shot_2016-07-12_at_4.34.48_PM.png) See merge request !5222
-
Annabel Dunstone authored
-
Annabel Dunstone authored
-
Jacob Schatz authored
Add margin to filter labels ## What does this MR do? Adds margin to filter labels ## Why was this MR needed? It was pretty ugly before ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #19708 ## Screenshots (if relevant) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_4.42.05_PM](/uploads/55c049e442a16a06c14bb9394137cc87/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_4.42.05_PM.png) See merge request !5194
-
Jacob Schatz authored
Update header block class on snippets page ## What does this MR do? Changes gray block in `Snippets` to new white sub header style ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #19692 ## Screenshots (if relevant) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_4.17.10_PM](/uploads/f4cea2d019d30fc7c6adc7e3b26590b4/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_4.17.10_PM.png) See merge request !5192
-
Jacob Schatz authored
Resolve "Design updates for Builds & Pipelines" ## What does this MR do? Updates pipelines design ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Part of #18920 Closes #17760 Closes #18479 Closes #19618 ## Screenshots (if relevant) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_2.44.22_PM](/uploads/5048928d86093802d84c3bd7f7c5dc85/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_2.44.22_PM.png) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_2.32.17_PM](/uploads/a7ab94c8042d33bd06ef633f62bf1c99/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_2.32.17_PM.png) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_2.44.43_PM](/uploads/8aa63229ad75d373c30f342d5c86c007/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_2.44.43_PM.png) See merge request !5156
-
Robert Speicher authored
Add 2FA check to the OAuth authentication mechanism Needed for https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19312 2FA checks were not being performed when logging in via any of the OAuth providers. Just LDAP had the check. This MR fixes that. See merge request !1976
-
Robert Speicher authored
Use number_with_delimiter for Todos pending/done tab counts See merge request !5199
-
Robert Speicher authored
Avoid `describe`-ing symbols in specs See merge request !5195
-
Robert Speicher authored
-
Jacob Schatz authored
Change new pipeline to run pipeline ## What does this MR do? Change text of button from `New pipeline` to `Run pipeline` ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #18935 Part of #18920 ## Screenshots (if relevant) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-06_at_12.15.36_PM](/uploads/2e0413b802118781dc5a29c7f1c105b8/Screen_Shot_2016-07-06_at_12.15.36_PM.png) See merge request !5119
-
Robert Speicher authored
[ci skip]
-
Annabel Dunstone authored
-
Annabel Dunstone authored
-
Annabel Dunstone authored
-
Annabel Dunstone authored
-