This field adds the possibility to set the update date when modifying
an issue through the API.
A 'NoAutoDate' in-memory field is added in the Issue struct.
If the update_at field is set, NoAutoDate is set to true and the
Issue's UpdatedUnix field is filled.
That information is passed down to the functions that actually updates
the database, which have been modified to not auto update dates if
requested.
A guard is added to the 'EditIssue' API call, to checks that the
udpate_at date is between the issue's creation date and the current
date (to avoid 'malicious' changes). It also limits the new feature
to project's owners and admins.
(cherry picked from commit c524d33402)
Add a SetIssueUpdateDate() function in services/issue.go
That function is used by some API calls to set the NoAutoDate and
UpdatedUnix fields of an Issue if an updated_at date is provided.
(cherry picked from commit f061caa655)
Add an updated_at field to the API calls related to Issue's Labels.
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's labels.
(cherry picked from commit ea36cf80f5)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's content, and is set as the
asset creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 96150971ca)
Checking Issue changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPIEditIssueWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 4926a5d7a2)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment creation
The update date is used as the comment creation date, and is applied to
the issue as the update creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 76c8faecdc)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment edition
The update date is used as the comment update date, and is applied to
the issue as an update date.
(cherry picked from commit cf787ad7fd)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for comment's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the comment, and is set as the asset
creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 1e4ff424d3)
Checking Comment changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPICreateCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit da932152f1)
Pettier code to set the update time of comments
Now uses sess.AllCols().NoAutoToime().SetExpr("updated_unix", ...)
XORM is smart enough to compose one single SQL UPDATE which all
columns + updated_unix.
(cherry picked from commit 1f6a42808d)
Issue edition: Keep the max of the milestone and issue update dates.
When editing an issue via the API, an updated_at date can be provided.
If the EditIssue call changes the issue's milestone, the milestone's
update date is to be changed accordingly, but only with a greater
value.
This ensures that a milestone's update date is the max of all issue's
update dates.
(cherry picked from commit 8f22ea182e)
Rewrite the 'AutoDate' tests using subtests
Also add a test to check the permissions to set a date, and a test
to check update dates on milestones.
The tests related to 'AutoDate' are:
- TestAPIEditIssueAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueMilestoneAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 961fd13c55)
(cherry picked from commit d52f4eea44)
(cherry picked from commit 3540ea2a43)
Conflicts:
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1415
(cherry picked from commit 56720ade00)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_label.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1462
(cherry picked from commit 47c78927d6)
(cherry picked from commit 2030f3b965)
(cherry picked from commit f02aeb7698)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_attachment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1575
(cherry picked from commit d072525b35)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3d)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec7)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) apply the 'update_at' value to the cross-ref comments (#1676)
[this is a follow-up to PR #764]
When a comment of issue A referencing issue B is added with a forced 'updated_at' date, that date has to be applied to the comment created in issue B.
-----
Comment:
While trying my 'RoundUp migration script', I found that this case was forgotten in PR #764 - my apologies...
I'll try to write a functional test, base on models/issues/issue_xref_test.go
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1676
Co-authored-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
Co-committed-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
(cherry picked from commit ac4f727f63)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9)
(cherry picked from commit 77ba6be1da)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8337b5c4)
(cherry picked from commit 1d689eb686)
(cherry picked from commit 511c519c87)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b4a8f61)
(cherry picked from commit fdd4da111c)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) do not use token= query param
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/33439b733a
(cherry picked from commit c5139a75b9)
(cherry picked from commit c7b572c35d)
(cherry picked from commit aec7503ff6)
Fixes#26548
This PR refactors the rendering of markup links. The old code uses
`strings.Replace` to change some urls while the new code uses more
context to decide which link should be generated.
The added tests should ensure the same output for the old and new
behaviour (besides the bug).
We may need to refactor the rendering a bit more to make it clear how
the different helper methods render the input string. There are lots of
options (resolve links / images / mentions / git hashes / emojis / ...)
but you don't really know what helper uses which options. For example,
we currently support images in the user description which should not be
allowed I think:
<details>
<summary>Profile</summary>
https://try.gitea.io/KN4CK3R
</details>
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fixes#27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28547#issuecomment-1867740842
Since https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2383 merged, xorm now supports
UPDATE JOIN.
To keep consistent from different databases, xorm use
`engine.Join().Update`, but the actural generated SQL are different
between different databases.
For MySQL, it's `UPDATE talbe1 JOIN table2 ON join_conditions SET xxx
Where xxx`.
For MSSQL, it's `UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM TABLE1, TABLE2 WHERE
join_conditions`.
For SQLITE per https://www.sqlite.org/lang_update.html, sqlite support
`UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM table2 WHERE join conditions` from
3.33.0(2020-8-14).
POSTGRES is the same as SQLITE.
Introduce the new generic deletion methods
- `func DeleteByID[T any](ctx context.Context, id int64) (int64, error)`
- `func DeleteByIDs[T any](ctx context.Context, ids ...int64) error`
- `func Delete[T any](ctx context.Context, opts FindOptions) (int64,
error)`
So, we no longer need any specific deletion method and can just use
the generic ones instead.
Replacement of #28450Closes#28450
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This reverts commit b35d3fddfa.
This is totally wrong. I think `Update join` hasn't been supported well
by xorm.
I just revert the PR and will try to send another one.
Using the Go Official tool `golang.org/x/tools/cmd/deadcode@latest`
mentioned by [go blog](https://go.dev/blog/deadcode).
Just use `deadcode .` in the project root folder and it gives a list of
unused functions. Though it has some false alarms.
This PR removes dead code detected in `models/issues`.
The function `GetByBean` has an obvious defect that when the fields are
empty values, it will be ignored. Then users will get a wrong result
which is possibly used to make a security problem.
To avoid the possibility, this PR removed function `GetByBean` and all
references.
And some new generic functions have been introduced to be used.
The recommand usage like below.
```go
// if query an object according id
obj, err := db.GetByID[Object](ctx, id)
// query with other conditions
obj, err := db.Get[Object](ctx, builder.Eq{"a": a, "b":b})
```
It will fix#28268 .
<img width="1313" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/cb1e07d5-7a12-4691-a054-8278ba255bfc">
<img width="1318" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/4fd60820-97f1-4c2c-a233-d3671a5039e9">
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
But need to give up some features:
<img width="1312" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/281c0d51-0e7d-473f-bbed-216e2f645610">
However, such abandonment may fix#28055 .
## Backgroud
When the user switches the dashboard context to an org, it means they
want to search issues in the repos that belong to the org. However, when
they switch to themselves, it means all repos they can access because
they may have created an issue in a public repo that they don't own.
<img width="286" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/182dcd5b-1c20-4725-93af-96e8dfae5b97">
It's a confusing design. Think about this: What does "In your
repositories" mean when the user switches to an org? Repos belong to the
user or the org?
Whatever, it has been broken by #26012 and its following PRs. After the
PR, it searches for issues in repos that the dashboard context user owns
or has been explicitly granted access to, so it causes #28268.
## How to fix it
It's not really difficult to fix it. Just extend the repo scope to
search issues when the dashboard context user is the doer. Since the
user may create issues or be mentioned in any public repo, we can just
set `AllPublic` to true, which is already supported by indexers. The DB
condition will also support it in this PR.
But the real difficulty is how to count the search results grouped by
repos. It's something like "search issues with this keyword and those
filters, and return the total number and the top results. **Then, group
all of them by repo and return the counts of each group.**"
<img width="314" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/5206eb20-f8f5-49b9-b45a-1be2fcf679f4">
Before #26012, it was being done in the DB, but it caused the results to
be incomplete (see the description of #26012).
And to keep this, #26012 implement it in an inefficient way, just count
the issues by repo one by one, so it cannot work when `AllPublic` is
true because it's almost impossible to do this for all public repos.
1bfcdeef4c/modules/indexer/issues/indexer.go (L318-L338)
## Give up unnecessary features
We may can resovle `TODO: use "group by" of the indexer engines to
implement it`, I'm sure it can be done with Elasticsearch, but IIRC,
Bleve and Meilisearch don't support "group by".
And the real question is, does it worth it? Why should we need to know
the counts grouped by repos?
Let me show you my search dashboard on gitea.com.
<img width="1304" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/2bca2d46-6c71-4de1-94cb-0c9af27c62ff">
I never think the long repo list helps anything.
And if we agree to abandon it, things will be much easier. That is this
PR.
## TODO
I know it's important to filter by repos when searching issues. However,
it shouldn't be the way we have it now. It could be implemented like
this.
<img width="1316" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/99ee5f21-cbb5-4dfe-914d-cb796cb79fbe">
The indexers support it well now, but it requires some frontend work,
which I'm not good at. So, I think someone could help do that in another
PR and merge this one to fix the bug first.
Or please block this PR and help to complete it.
Finally, "Switch dashboard context" is also a design that needs
improvement. In my opinion, it can be accomplished by adding filtering
conditions instead of "switching".
System users (Ghost, ActionsUser, etc) have a negative id and may be the
author of a comment, either because it was created by a now deleted user
or via an action using a transient token.
The GetPossibleUserByID function has special cases related to system
users and will not fail if given a negative id.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1425
(cherry picked from commit 6a2d2fa243)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1458
Some mails such as issue creation mails are missing the reply-to-comment
address. This PR fixes that and specifies which comment types should get
a reply-possibility.
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.
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.
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.
This PR removed `unittest.MainTest` the second parameter
`TestOptions.GiteaRoot`. Now it detects the root directory by current
working directory.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This fixes a performance bottleneck. It was discovered by Codeberg.
Every where query on that table (which has grown big over time) uses
this column, but there is no index on it.
See this part of the log which was posted on Matrix:
```
2023/09/10 00:52:01 ...rs/web/repo/issue.go:1446:ViewIssue() [W] [Slow SQL Query] UPDATE `issue_user` SET is_read=? WHERE uid=? AND issue_id=? [true x y] - 51.395434887s
2023/09/10 00:52:01 ...rs/web/repo/issue.go:1447:ViewIssue() [E] ReadBy: Error 1205 (HY000): Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction
2023/09/10 00:52:01 ...eb/routing/logger.go:102:func1() [I] router: completed GET /Codeberg/Community/issues/1201 for [::ffff:xxx]:0, 500 Internal Server Error in 52384.2ms @ repo/issue.go:1256(repo.ViewIssue)
```
Since the issue indexer has been refactored, the issue overview webpage
is built by the `buildIssueOverview` function and underlying
`indexer.Search` function and `GetIssueStats` instead of
`GetUserIssueStats`. So the function is no longer used.
I moved the relevant tests to `indexer_test.go` and since the search
option changed from `IssueOptions` to `SearchOptions`, most of the tests
are useless now.
We need more tests about the db indexer because those tests are highly
connected with the issue overview webpage and now this page has several
bugs.
Any advice about those test cases is appreciated.
---------
Co-authored-by: CaiCandong <50507092+CaiCandong@users.noreply.github.com>
