- 28 Oct, 2016 35 commits
-
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix CHANGELOG for GH import fixes See merge request !7173
-
Stan Hu authored
Merge branch 'ee-1159-allow-permission-check-bypass-in-approve-access-request-service' into 'master' Allow Members::ApproveAccessRequestService to accept a new `:force` option ## What does this MR do? See the commit message. This is a backport of the EE fix for https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/1159: gitlab-org/gitlab-ee!830 See merge request !7168
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Merge branch '23872-members-of-group-that-has-project-access-getting-404-on-accessing-a-project-issue' into 'master' Fix project member access for group links Closes #23872. See merge request !7144
-
Douwe Maan authored
Pass user instance to Labels::FindOrCreateService or skip_authorization: true ## What does this MR do? It fixes a bug described in #23694 when `project.owner` was passed to `Labels::FindOrCreateService`. `Labels::FindOrCreateService` expected a user instance and `project.owner` may return a group as well. This MR makes sure that we either pass a user instance or `skip_authorization: true`. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? - places where we pass `skip_authorization: true` ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - Tests - [x] Added for this feature/bug - [ ] All builds are passing - [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html) - [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 it does - rebase it please) - [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Fixes #23694 See merge request !7093
-
Stan Hu authored
Use optimistic locking ## What does this MR do? Removes the usage of pessimistic locking in favor of optimistic which is way cheaper and doesn't block database operation. Since this is very simple change it should be safe. If we receive `StaleObjectError` message we will reload object a retry operations in lock. However, I still believe that we need this one: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/7005 as this will reduce a load on Database and FS. This changes a behavior from: ### Pesimistic locking (previous behavior) #### For updating 1. SELECT * FOR UPDATE (other updates wait on this) 2. we update ci_pipeline 3. latest_build_status 4. enqueue: (use: transition :created -> :pending) 5. [state_machine] we are in state created, we can go to pending 6. [state_machine] ci_pipeline.status = created 7. [state_machine] ci_pipeline.save 8. [state_machine] after_transition: (if for success): PipelineSuccessWorker on Sidekiq 9. release DB lock #### If no update is required 1. SELECT * FOR UPDATE (other updates wait on this) 2. we update ci_pipeline 3. latest_build_status 4. we are in pending, we can't transition to pending, because it's forbidden 5. release DB lock ### Optimistic locking (implemented by this MR) #### For updating 1. latest_build_status 2. enqueue: (use `transition :created -> :pending`) 3. [state_machine] we are in state created, we can go to pending 4. [state_machine] ci_pipeline.status = created 5. [state_machine] ci_pipeline.save 6. [state_machine] [save] where(lock_version: ci_pipeline.lock_version).update_all(status: :created, updated_at: Time.now) 7. [state_machine] [save] unless we_updated_row then raise ObjectInconsistentError #### If no update is required 1. we update ci_pipeline 2. latest_build_status 3. we are in pending, we can't transition to pending, because it's forbidden ## Why was this MR needed? We have been seeing a number of problems when we migrated Pipeline/Build processing to Sidekiq. Especially we started seeing a lot of blocking queries. We used a pessimistic locking which doesn't seem to be required. This effectively allows us to fix our issues with blocked queries by using more efficient method of operation. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Issues: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/623 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/584, but also there's a bunch of Merge Requests that try to improve behavior of scheduled jobs. cc @pcarranza @yorickpeterse @stanhu See merge request !7040
-
Robert Speicher authored
Delete issue board welcome cookie ## What does this MR do? This was seen in the idea to production demo, because the project had already existed on the exact same URL the cookie already existed which meant the blank state wasn't shown. This MR deletes the cookie on project create. See merge request !6899
-
Sean McGivern authored
-
Rémy Coutable authored
This param allows to bypass permission check. It is useful for LDAP-sync where even owners don't have the :admin_group_member permission. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/6081c37123abae4570f78831b33c2f45f92c2765/app/policies/group_policy.rb#L38 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/1159Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Replace static fixture by generated one in issue_spec.js ## What does this MR do? - clean up `issue_spec.js` - introduce an alternative approach to #19445 - rename `rake teaspoon` to `rake teaspoon:tests` - introduce `rake teaspoon:fixtures` which generates fixtures using RSpec - introduce `rake teaspoon` which runs `rake teaspoon:fixtures` and `rake teaspoon:tests` ## Why was this MR needed? - many duplications - missing existence checks - missing conditions - static fixtures don't match real views ## Reasoning I want to explain some of my decisions here, so that they stay visible for future discussions. ### Why not HAML? - same number of HAML templates as number of fixtures (many input files) - embedded logic less readable - can not be rendered by JavaScript (because of inline Ruby) ### Why RSpec? - real controllers for fixtures - spys available for mocking - easily report failed fixture generations ### Why not magic_lamp? (#19445) - introduces another dependency/tool - needs to run a server concurrently to teaspoon - makes it harder to use a JavaScript test runner - static HTML files serve faster See merge request !6059
-
Phil Hughes authored
-
Phil Hughes authored
-
Sean McGivern authored
These changes are targeted for 8.13.2, not 8.14.
-
Sean McGivern authored
Modify GitHub importer to be retryable Closes #23533 See merge request !7003
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Only show one error message for an invalid email Changes it to only validate the notification_email format if it's different from email. Closes #5905 See merge request !7158
-
Sean McGivern authored
Stop unauthorized users dragging on milestone page Closes #13670 See merge request !7113
-
Winnie authored
-
winniehell authored
-
winniehell authored
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Document admin access requirement for /deploy_keys endpoint Closes #23807 See merge request !7164
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix and improve `Sortable.highest_label_priority` Closes #23928 See merge request !7165
-
Sean McGivern authored
API: Fix booleans not recognized as such when using the `to_boolean` helper Fixes #22831 Fixes #23890 See merge request !7149
-
Sean McGivern authored
Jira refactoring to jira gem part of gitlab-org/gitlab-ee#1008 Original MR: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/2572/commits See merge request !6598
-
Douwe Maan authored
Prevent a spec from failing in `spec/features/merge_requests/diff_notes_resolve_spec.rb` ## What does this MR do? Fixes a failing spec in `spec/features/merge_requests/diff_notes_resolve_spec.rb` ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? ## Why was this MR needed? Tests failing on master. RSpec executes inner `before` blocks after outer `before` blocks, so the second note was being added *after* loading the page, and then being pulled in by running JS on the page, causing intermittent failures if we clicked the resolve button before the note was loaded. ## Screenshots (if relevant) ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [ ] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md) 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 - [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html) - [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides) - [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please) - [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #23875 See merge request !7150
-
blackst0ne authored
Merge branch 'bugfix/dragging_milestones' of gitlab.com:blackst0ne/gitlab-ce into bugfix/dragging_milestones
-
blackst0ne authored
-
Adam Niedzielski authored
Do not pass project.owner because it may return a group and Labels::FindOrCreateService throws an error in this case. Fixes #23694.
-
blackst0ne authored
-
Ahmad Sherif authored
-
Ahmad Sherif authored
-
Ahmad Sherif authored
-
Ahmad Sherif authored
-
Ahmad Sherif authored
-
Sean McGivern authored
Fix couple of GitHub importing bugs Fix a bug in GH comment importing and label applying for imported MRs. See merge request !7139
-
Sean McGivern authored
`ProjectTeam#find_member` doesn't take group links into account. It was used in two places: 1. An admin view - it can stay here. 2. `ProjectTeam#member?`, which is often used to decide if a user has access to view something. This second part broke confidential issues viewing. `IssuesFinder` ends up delegating to `Project#authorized_for_user?`, which does consider group links, so users with access to the project via a group link could see confidential issues on the index page. However, `IssuesPolicy` used `ProjectTeam#member?`, so the same user couldn't view the issue when going to it directly.
-
Alejandro Rodríguez authored
-
- 27 Oct, 2016 5 commits
-
-
Nick Thomas authored
-
winniehell authored
-
Annabel Dunstone Gray authored
edited stylesheet with mr modal fixes and added to changelog ## What does this MR do? It shortens the modal command merge info elements. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? I used the `.dark` class.. is that correct usage? Made no issue as this is a minor upgrade to UI ## Why was this MR needed? Clipboard buttons could obscure information in the merge info modal, this way its clean. ## Screenshots (if relevant) From: ![image](/uploads/99269c9a314c593cb06239c27565b07c/image.png) To: ![image](/uploads/7e278a5aaa8c57270e8a320cc270b5d8/image.png) ## 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 - [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html) - [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides) - [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please) - [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) ## What are the relevant issue numbers? None, its a quick fix See merge request !7145
-
Sid Sijbrandij authored
Add section about contributing to README Closes #23830 See merge request !7137
-
Dimitrie Hoekstra authored
-