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>
This pull request is a minor code cleanup.
From the Go specification (https://go.dev/ref/spec#For_range):
> "1. For a nil slice, the number of iterations is 0."
> "3. If the map is nil, the number of iterations is 0."
`len` returns 0 if the slice or map is nil
(https://pkg.go.dev/builtin#len). Therefore, checking `len(v) > 0`
before a loop is unnecessary.
---
At the time of writing this pull request, there wasn't a lint rule that
catches these issues. The closest I could find is
https://staticcheck.dev/docs/checks/#S103
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.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.
Part of #27065
This reduces the usage of `db.DefaultContext`. I think I've got enough
files for the first PR. When this is merged, I will continue working on
this.
Considering how many files this PR affect, I hope it won't take to long
to merge, so I don't end up in the merge conflict hell.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
You can currently visit `{repo}/issues/new` and create a blank issue,
even if it's disabled. This PR fixes this,
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1356
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
The web context (modules/context.Context) is quite complex, it's
difficult for the callers to initialize correctly.
This PR introduces a `NewWebContext` function, to make sure the web
context have the same behavior for different cases.
the head branch is meaningless for a agit flow pull request, so should
not check it when reopen it.
related: #24231fix#26334
Signed-off-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
Fix#26129
Replace #26258
This PR will introduce a transaction on creating pull request so that if
some step failed, it will rollback totally. And there will be no dirty
pull request exist.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fix#24662.
Replace #24822 and #25708 (although it has been merged)
## Background
In the past, Gitea supported issue searching with a keyword and
conditions in a less efficient way. It worked by searching for issues
with the keyword and obtaining limited IDs (as it is heavy to get all)
on the indexer (bleve/elasticsearch/meilisearch), and then querying with
conditions on the database to find a subset of the found IDs. This is
why the results could be incomplete.
To solve this issue, we need to store all fields that could be used as
conditions in the indexer and support both keyword and additional
conditions when searching with the indexer.
## Major changes
- Redefine `IndexerData` to include all fields that could be used as
filter conditions.
- Refactor `Search(ctx context.Context, kw string, repoIDs []int64,
limit, start int, state string)` to `Search(ctx context.Context, options
*SearchOptions)`, so it supports more conditions now.
- Change the data type stored in `issueIndexerQueue`. Use
`IndexerMetadata` instead of `IndexerData` in case the data has been
updated while it is in the queue. This also reduces the storage size of
the queue.
- Enhance searching with Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch, make them
fully support `SearchOptions`. Also, update the data versions.
- Keep most logic of database indexer, but remove
`issues.SearchIssueIDsByKeyword` in `models` to avoid confusion where is
the entry point to search issues.
- Start a Meilisearch instance to test it in unit tests.
- Add unit tests with almost full coverage to test
Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch indexer.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
The JSONRedirect/JSONOK/JSONError functions were put into "Base" context
incorrectly, it would cause abuse.
Actually, they are for "web context" only, so, move them to the correct
place.
And by the way, use them to simplify old code: +75 -196
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
Close#25906
![image](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/2114189/e689f3e1-9a90-46c0-89f4-2d61394d34d3)
Succeeded logs:
```
[I] router: completed GET /root/test/issues/posters?&q=%20&_=1689853025011 for [::1]:59271, 200 OK in 127.7ms @ repo/issue.go:3505(repo.IssuePosters)
[I] router: completed GET /root/test/pulls/posters?&q=%20&_=1689853968204 for [::1]:59269, 200 OK in 94.3ms @ repo/issue.go:3509(repo.PullPosters)
```
A couple of notes:
* Future changes should refactor arguments into a struct
* This filtering only is supported by meilisearch right now
* Issue index number is bumped which will cause a re-index
Related #14180
Related #25233
Related #22639Close#19786
Related #12763
This PR will change all the branches retrieve method from reading git
data to read database to reduce git read operations.
- [x] Sync git branches information into database when push git data
- [x] Create a new table `Branch`, merge some columns of `DeletedBranch`
into `Branch` table and drop the table `DeletedBranch`.
- [x] Read `Branch` table when visit `code` -> `branch` page
- [x] Read `Branch` table when list branch names in `code` page dropdown
- [x] Read `Branch` table when list git ref compare page
- [x] Provide a button in admin page to manually sync all branches.
- [x] Sync branches if repository is not empty but database branches are
empty when visiting pages with branches list
- [x] Use `commit_time desc` as the default FindBranch order by to keep
consistent as before and deleted branches will be always at the end.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Refactor `modules/indexer` to make it more maintainable. And it can be
easier to support more features. I'm trying to solve some of issue
searching, this is a precursor to making functional changes.
Current supported engines and the index versions:
| engines | issues | code |
| - | - | - |
| db | Just a wrapper for database queries, doesn't need version | - |
| bleve | The version of index is **2** | The version of index is **6**
|
| elasticsearch | The old index has no version, will be treated as
version **0** in this PR | The version of index is **1** |
| meilisearch | The old index has no version, will be treated as version
**0** in this PR | - |
## Changes
### Split
Splited it into mutiple packages
```text
indexer
├── internal
│ ├── bleve
│ ├── db
│ ├── elasticsearch
│ └── meilisearch
├── code
│ ├── bleve
│ ├── elasticsearch
│ └── internal
└── issues
├── bleve
├── db
├── elasticsearch
├── internal
└── meilisearch
```
- `indexer/interanal`: Internal shared package for indexer.
- `indexer/interanal/[engine]`: Internal shared package for each engine
(bleve/db/elasticsearch/meilisearch).
- `indexer/code`: Implementations for code indexer.
- `indexer/code/internal`: Internal shared package for code indexer.
- `indexer/code/[engine]`: Implementation via each engine for code
indexer.
- `indexer/issues`: Implementations for issues indexer.
### Deduplication
- Combine `Init/Ping/Close` for code indexer and issues indexer.
- ~Combine `issues.indexerHolder` and `code.wrappedIndexer` to
`internal.IndexHolder`.~ Remove it, use dummy indexer instead when the
indexer is not ready.
- Duplicate two copies of creating ES clients.
- Duplicate two copies of `indexerID()`.
### Enhancement
- [x] Support index version for elasticsearch issues indexer, the old
index without version will be treated as version 0.
- [x] Fix spell of `elastic_search/ElasticSearch`, it should be
`Elasticsearch`.
- [x] Improve versioning of ES index. We don't need `Aliases`:
- Gitea does't need aliases for "Zero Downtime" because it never delete
old indexes.
- The old code of issues indexer uses the orignal name to create issue
index, so it's tricky to convert it to an alias.
- [x] Support index version for meilisearch issues indexer, the old
index without version will be treated as version 0.
- [x] Do "ping" only when `Ping` has been called, don't ping
periodically and cache the status.
- [x] Support the context parameter whenever possible.
- [x] Fix outdated example config.
- [x] Give up the requeue logic of issues indexer: When indexing fails,
call Ping to check if it was caused by the engine being unavailable, and
only requeue the task if the engine is unavailable.
- It is fragile and tricky, could cause data losing (It did happen when
I was doing some tests for this PR). And it works for ES only.
- Just always requeue the failed task, if it caused by bad data, it's a
bug of Gitea which should be fixed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
this will allow us to fully localize it later
PS: we can not migrate back as the old value was a one-way conversion
prepare for #25213
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
This PR replaces all string refName as a type `git.RefName` to make the
code more maintainable.
Fix#15367
Replaces #23070
It also fixed a bug that tags are not sync because `git remote --prune
origin` will not remove local tags if remote removed.
We in fact should use `git fetch --prune --tags origin` but not `git
remote update origin` to do the sync.
Some answer from ChatGPT as ref.
> If the git fetch --prune --tags command is not working as expected,
there could be a few reasons why. Here are a few things to check:
>
>Make sure that you have the latest version of Git installed on your
system. You can check the version by running git --version in your
terminal. If you have an outdated version, try updating Git and see if
that resolves the issue.
>
>Check that your Git repository is properly configured to track the
remote repository's tags. You can check this by running git config
--get-all remote.origin.fetch and verifying that it includes
+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*. If it does not, you can add it by running git
config --add remote.origin.fetch "+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*".
>
>Verify that the tags you are trying to prune actually exist on the
remote repository. You can do this by running git ls-remote --tags
origin to list all the tags on the remote repository.
>
>Check if any local tags have been created that match the names of tags
on the remote repository. If so, these local tags may be preventing the
git fetch --prune --tags command from working properly. You can delete
local tags using the git tag -d command.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves#2175.
## Screenshots
![grafik](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/15185051/235123207-0aa39869-bb48-45c3-abe2-ba1e836046ec.png)
![grafik](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/15185051/235123297-152a16ea-a857-451d-9a42-61f2cd54dd75.png)
![grafik](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/15185051/235640782-cbfe25ec-6254-479a-a3de-133e585d7a2d.png)
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/16321
Provided a webhook trigger for requesting someone to review the Pull
Request.
Some modifications have been made to the returned `PullRequestPayload`
based on the GitHub webhook settings, including:
- add a description of the current reviewer object as
`RequestedReviewer` .
- setting the action to either **review_requested** or
**review_request_removed** based on the operation.
- adding the `RequestedReviewers` field to the issues_model.PullRequest.
This field will be loaded into the PullRequest through
`LoadRequestedReviewers()` when `ToAPIPullRequest` is called.
After the Pull Request is merged, I will supplement the relevant
documentation.