Currently this feature is only available to admins, but there is no
clear reason why. If a user can actually merge pull requests, then this
seems fine as well.
This is useful in situations where direct pushes to the repository are
commonly done by developers.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* Show checkout instructions also when there is no permission to push,
for anyone who wants to locally test the changes.
* First checkout the branch exactly as is, without immediately having to
solve merge conflicts. Leave this to the merge step, since it's often
convenient to test a change without worrying about this.
* Use `git fetch -u`, so an existing local branch is updated when
re-testing the same pull request. But not the more risky `git fetch -f`
in to handle force pushes, as we don't want to accidentally overwrite
important local changes.
* Show different merge command depending on the chosen merge style,
interactively updated.
If you set a checkbox as required in a issue form at the moment, the
checkbox is checked and read only, what does not make much sense. With
this PR, the Checkbox actually needs to be checked. The label supports
now also Markdown. This matches GitHub's behaviour.
And yes, I know the CSS is a ugly workaround. It looks like the given
CSS code is part Fomantic and I don't know how to change that. The
Maintainers are free to change that.
- The review type '22' is a general comment type that is attached to
single codecomments, reviews with multiple comments or to simple approve
and request changes comment. This comment can be used to create a link
towards this action on an pull request.
- Adds an anchor to the review comment type, so that when its getting
linked to it, it actually jumps towards that event.
- This also now fixes the behavior that after you created a review you
will be redirected to that review and because this is an general comment
type other mails will also be 'fixed' such as the approved or request
changes.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1248
(cherry picked from commit 1741a5f1fe6adc68bb5f87bdd1c5bdc5bfaa45c7)
---------
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-authored-by: Caesar Schinas <caesar@caesarschinas.com>
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.
1. Use `gt-invisible` instead of `invisible`.
2. Use `gt-word-break` instead of `dont-break-out` (there is a slight
different "hyphens", but I think it won't affect too much since it is
only used for the "full name").
3. Remove `.small.button:has(svg)` , now our buttons could layout SVG
correctly, and actually I didn't see this CSS class is used in code.
Each change is tested manually line by line. There are too many changes
so I can't share dozens of screenshots.
In short:
1. `ui right` could be still used in `ui top attached header`, because
there is a special case.
2. A lot of `ui right` are just no-op, so they can be removed safely.
3. Some of the `ui right` should be replaced by `gt-float-right` (to
avoid breaking, leave them to the future).
4. A few of the `ui right` could be rewritten by flex.
Fix#26731
Almost all "tabindex" in code are incorrect.
1. All "input/button" by default are focusable, so no need to use "tabindex=0"
2. All "div/span" by default are not focusable, so no need to use "tabindex=-1"
3. All "dropdown" are focusable by framework, so no need to use "tabindex"
4. Some tabindex values are incorrect (eg: `new_form.tmpl`), so remove them
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/26567#issue-1855312074
> The terms `closest` and `furthest` don't describe the actual sorting
behavior as these two are semantically relative to the current date.
> Could we switch to `earliest` and `latest` instead?
close#26567
---------
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Archived labels
This adds the structure to allow for archived labels.
Archived labels are, just like closed milestones or projects, a medium to hide information without deleting it.
It is especially useful if there are outdated labels that should no longer be used without deleting the label entirely.
## Changes
1. UI and API have been equipped with the support to mark a label as archived
2. The time when a label has been archived will be stored in the DB
## Outsourced for the future
There's no special handling for archived labels at the moment.
This will be done in the future.
## Screenshots
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25237
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR refactors a bunch of projects-related code, mostly the
templates.
The following things were done:
- rename boards to columns in frontend code
- use the new `ctx.Locale.Tr` method
- cleanup template, remove useless newlines, classes, comments
- merge org-/user and repo level project template together
- move "new column" button into project toolbar
- move issue card (shared by projects and pinned issues) to shared
template, remove useless duplicated styles
- add search function to projects (to make the layout more similar to
milestones list where it is inherited from 😆)
- maybe more changes I forgot I've done 😆Closes#24893
After:
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
This problem occurs because in #25839, the warning status has been
removed, but there is something in the tmpl that hasn't been changed.
related #25839close#26118
Issue filters are being used on repo list page and on milestone issues
page, and the code is mostly duplicated.
This PR does the following changes:
- move issue filters into a shared template
- allow filtering milestone issues by project, so no need to hide this
filter on milestone issues page
- remove some dead code (e. g. issue actions in milestone issues
template)
- fix label filter dropdown width
---------
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
