Resolves#29965.
---
Manually tested this by:
- Following the
[installation](https://docs.gitea.com/next/installation/install-with-docker#basics)
guide (but built a local Docker image instead)
- Creating 2 users, one who is the `Owner` of a newly-created repository
and the other a `Collaborator`
- Had the `Collaborator` create a PR that the `Owner` reviews
- `Collaborator` resolves conversation and `Owner` merges PR
And with this change we see that we can no longer see re-request review
button for the `Owner`:
<img width="1351" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-25 at 12 39 18 AM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/60799661/bcd9c579-3cf7-474f-a51e-b436fe1a39a4">
(cherry picked from commit 242b331260925e604150346e61329097d5731e77)
(cherry picked from commit f8ab9dafb7a173a35e9308f8f784735b0f822439)
Conflicts:
routers/web/repo/fork.go
trivial context conflict, the file does not exist in Forgejo
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
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
## Purpose
This is a refactor toward building an abstraction over managing git
repositories.
Afterwards, it does not matter anymore if they are stored on the local
disk or somewhere remote.
## What this PR changes
We used `git.OpenRepository` everywhere previously.
Now, we should split them into two distinct functions:
Firstly, there are temporary repositories which do not change:
```go
git.OpenRepository(ctx, diskPath)
```
Gitea managed repositories having a record in the database in the
`repository` table are moved into the new package `gitrepo`:
```go
gitrepo.OpenRepository(ctx, repo_model.Repo)
```
Why is `repo_model.Repository` the second parameter instead of file
path?
Because then we can easily adapt our repository storage strategy.
The repositories can be stored locally, however, they could just as well
be stored on a remote server.
## Further changes in other PRs
- A Git Command wrapper on package `gitrepo` could be created. i.e.
`NewCommand(ctx, repo_model.Repository, commands...)`. `git.RunOpts{Dir:
repo.RepoPath()}`, the directory should be empty before invoking this
method and it can be filled in the function only. #28940
- Remove the `RepoPath()`/`WikiPath()` functions to reduce the
possibility of mistakes.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Part of #27065
This PR touches functions used in templates. As templates are not static
typed, errors are harder to find, but I hope I catch it all. I think
some tests from other persons do not hurt.
I noticed that `issue_service.CreateComment` adds transaction operations
on `issues_model.CreateComment`, we can merge the two functions and we
can avoid calling each other's methods in the `services` layer.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Close#23241
Before: press Ctrl+Enter in the Code Review Form, a single comment will
be added.
After: press Ctrl+Enter in the Code Review Form, start the review with
pending comments.
The old name `is_review` is not clear, so the new code use
`pending_review` as the new name.
Co-authored-by: delvh <leon@kske.dev>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* Check if project has the same repository id with issue when assign project to issue
* Check if issue's repository id match project's repository id
* Add more permission checking
* Remove invalid argument
* Fix errors
* Add generic check
* Remove duplicated check
* Return error + add check for new issues
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
* Move access and repo permission to models/perm/access
* fix test
* fix git test
* Move functions sequence
* Some improvements per @KN4CK3R and @delvh
* Move issues related code to models/issues
* Move some issues related sub package
* Merge
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Rename some files
* Remove `db.DefaultContext` usage in routers, use `ctx` directly
* Use `ctx` directly if there is one, remove some `db.DefaultContext` in `services`
* Use ctx instead of db.DefaultContext for `cmd` and some `modules` packages
* fix incorrect context usage
This PR continues the work in #17125 by progressively ensuring that git
commands run within the request context.
This now means that the if there is a git repo already open in the context it will be used instead of reopening it.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Some refactors related repository model
* Move more methods out of repository
* Move repository into models/repo
* Fix test
* Fix test
* some improvements
* Remove unnecessary function
* DBContext is just a Context
This PR removes some of the specialness from the DBContext and makes it context
This allows us to simplify the GetEngine code to wrap around any context in future
and means that we can change our loadRepo(e Engine) functions to simply take contexts.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* fix unit tests
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* another place that needs to set the initial context
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* avoid race
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* change attachment error
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Add info about list endpoints to CONTRIBUTING.md
* Let all list endpoints return X-Total-Count header
* Add TODOs for GetCombinedCommitStatusByRef
* Fix models/issue_stopwatch.go
* Rrefactor models.ListDeployKeys
* Introduce helper func and use them for SetLinkHeader related func
* CutDiffAroundLine makes the incorrect assumption that `---` and `+++` always represent part of the header of a diff.
This PR adds a flag to its parsing to prevent this problem and adds a streaming parsing technique to CutDiffAroundLine using an io.pipe instead of just sending data to an unbounded buffer.
Fix#14711
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Handle unquoted comment patch files
When making comment patches unfortunately the patch does not always quote the filename
This makes the diff --git header ambiguous again.
This PR finally adds handling for ambiguity in to parse patch
Fix#14812
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Add in testing for no error
There is no way currently for CutDiffAroundLine in this test to cause an
error however, it should still be tested.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Fixes#14187: mention handling extracted from email notification code
Fixes#14013: add notification for mentions in pull request code comments
Fixes#13450: Not receiving any emails with setting "Only Email on Mention"
Fixes#13683.
The diff snippet that provides context for a code review comment on the pull request timeline page used to be calculated based on the headCommitID. But in 1.13, with PR #13448, this changed to the commitID from the blame for the commented line, which seems to cause these incorrect review comment diff snippets.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* When replying to an outdated comment it should not appear on the files page
This happened because the comment took the latest commitID as its base instead of the
reviewID that it was replying to.
There was also no way of creating an already outdated comment - and a
reply to a review on an outdated line should be outdated.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* fix test
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Fix broken migration
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* fix mssql
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Create temporary table because ... well MSSQL ...
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Create temporary table because ... well MSSQL ...
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Create temporary table because ... well MSSQL ...
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* fix mssql
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* move session within the batch
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* regen the sqlcmd each time round the loop
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* as per @lunny
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* When replying to an outdated comment it should not appear on the files page
This happened because the comment took the latest commitID as its base instead of the
reviewID that it was replying to.
There was also no way of creating an already outdated comment - and a
reply to a review on an outdated line should be outdated.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* fix test
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
