- 20 Aug, 2016 23 commits
-
-
Alfredo Sumaran authored
[ci skip]
-
Alfredo Sumaran authored
[ci skip]
-
Alfredo Sumaran authored
[ci skip]
-
Alfredo Sumaran authored
[ci skip]
-
Alfredo Sumaran authored
[ci skip]
-
Alfredo Sumaran authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. We might need to update/delete access levels that were created in this `update` call without a page refresh. 2. The JS relies on the JSON response for the IDs of the newly created access level records.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- Using the `allow_destroy` option for `accepts_nested_attributes_for`
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. No need to change the spec for `UserAccess#can_push_to_branch?` for EE anymore. 2. Make the `dropdowns_helper` change additive to CE, so as to reduce the potential for merge conflicts.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- In 5b92c54319cd0e10f879a35bf6aab85a8e04e540, we destroyed all the default access levels for a factory-created protected branch. - Inadvertently, we also destroyed all spec-created access levels, leading to a number of failures, which should now be fixed.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- As part of gitlab-org/gitlab-ce!5824, the `protected_branches` factory creates default `MASTER` access levels for merging and pushing. - Some specs rely on the condition that no pre-existing access levels exist when a protected branch is created, and these specs were failing. - Added a factory trait to remove the default access levels.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- Project needs to be loaded before `find_users` is called.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Check if a project is readable by the current user when fetching users for autocomplete. 2. Remove duplication relating to gon variables in `ProtectedBranchesController` 3. Remove unnecessary colons in view labels. 4. Remove an explicit `false` check in the `branches` API.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- Primarly whitespace and code style changes. - Improve feature spec dealing with removing a user from a protected branch. Previously, we were only asserting on a "Deleted" flash notice. Now the assertion looks at the database to make sure that the right access level was removed.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Set `gon.current_project_id` in a protected branches controller, since that's the only place this is used. 2. Move flash notice to the redirect message. 3. Rename the `js_access_levels` method to `access_levels_options` 4. Scope a `find` while sending a branch protection email. 5. Use scopes to simplify finding users with push/merge access for a project. 6. Use `change_column_null` to avoid an `ActiveRecord::IrreversibleMigration`
-
Timothy Andrew authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- While selecting user access for a protected branch.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- When a user leaves a project, any access levels that they were granted specifically are destroyed. - When a user is removed from a project, any access levels that they were granted specifically are destroyed.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
To work with restricting access to a specific user.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. While creating a protected branch, you can set a single user / role for each setting ("Allowed to Merge", "Allowed to Push"). 2. More users / roles can be set subsequently. 3. Repurposed 'users_select.js.coffee` for the needs of this page. 4. Move protected branch settings to the `show` page. - Too many settings on the single index page can be overwhelming. Also, if the number of users that can access a protected branch is large, the amount of space between protected branches in the table can be unwieldy. - This is the simplest design I can think of - we can use this until we have someone from the frontend/ux team take a look at this. - Move protected branches javascript under a `protected_branches` directory. - The dropdowns don't show access levels / users that have already been selected. - Allow deleting access levels using two new access level controllers.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- A protected branch now `has_many` access levels (as opposed to `has_one`, which CE will continue to have). Each access level represents either a user or a role that is allowed to access the protected branch. - Update `git_access_spec` to test cases where a specific user is given access to a protected branch. - Remove the explicit `push_check` for protected branches. This is because a non-developer user (such as a reporter) should be able to push code if they are added to a protected branch specifically. - Fix specs (git_access_spec) that were implicitly depending on a master push access level being created (previously, a protected branch's default state was "masters can push + masters can merge"). Since the current default is "none", the dependency needs to be explicitly declared. - Update `git_push_service` so default branch protection (for new repos) works as expected.
-
- 19 Aug, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Valery Sizov authored
[ES] Add explanation comments See merge request !650
-
- 18 Aug, 2016 15 commits
-
-
Robert Speicher authored
Allow LDAP `sync_ssh_keys` setting to be set to `true` In that case `sync_ssh_keys` will default to the `sshPublicKey` value Fixes #8 See merge request !670
-
Patricio Cano authored
In that case `sync_ssh_keys` will default to the `sshPublicKey` value.
-
Stan Hu authored
[ES] Fix for unborn head Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/21038 See merge request !669
-
Valery Sizov authored
-
Valery Sizov authored
-
Robert Speicher authored
Allow syncing a group against all providers at once ## What does this MR do? Allows `Sync::Group` to sync members for a single group across all providers at once. Closes #399 ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? No ## Why was this MR needed? The current implementation of LDAP group sync manages members based on a single LDAP provider. This is optimal because we can open a single connection to a given LDAP server (provider) and run all queries needed to sync all GitLab groups with links to that provider. If we want to sync a single group at a time we need to flip that model - for a single group, run the sync for all providers. This presents a few challenges since we have a state machine on the group. In the former/current model we need to set the state inside the loop. However, if we do that in the latter model we will likely run into a race condition. At least, it will execute unnecessary queries against the database. Other than adding the functionality needed to sync a single group, the MR moves the state machine handling to the respective class method. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? #399 See merge request !636
-
Valery Sizov authored
[ES] Limit amount of retries for sidekiq jobs ES index data is not that critical and in most of the cases sidekiq jobs fails due to bugs. What do you think @jnijhof and @pcarranza See merge request !666
-
Valery Sizov authored
[ES] Rspec for code that used delete-by-query plugin We need to reconfigure CI so elastic has `delete-by-query` plugin installed See merge request !654
-
Valery Sizov authored
-
Stan Hu authored
Remove tiny grammar mistake Just removing the "it" at the end of the sentence, I think it was a mistake. See merge request !667
-
De Wet Blomerus authored
-
Valery Sizov authored
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
Refactor description templates documentation CE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/5839 See merge request !657
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
-
Achilleas Pipinellis authored
-
- 17 Aug, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Drew Blessing authored
-