| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Enable Style/EmptyLinesAround Module/Class Body cop
## What does this MR do?
Enable a new rubocop cops as discussed here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/1877/diffs#note_13021078
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
May be a good idea to send a message to people to prevent `master` red because of the new cop.
## Why was this MR needed?
We want to improve code style and not waste endbosses time checking style manually
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [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 [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5692
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Revert "Defend against 'Host' header injection"
We reverted this in omnibus but forgot to do it in the source NGINX template.
See merge request !5706
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This reverts commit 47b5b441395921e9f8e9982bb3f560e5db5a67bc.
See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/17877#note_13488047
|
|\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Enable Style/SpaceAroundEqualsInParameterDefault cop
## What does this MR do?
Enable a new rubocop cops as discussed here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/1877#note_13529646
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
May be a good idea to send a message to people to prevent master red because of the new cop.
## Why was this MR needed?
We want to improve code style and not waste endbosses time checking style manually
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [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 [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5693
|
| | |/
| |/| |
|
|\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Log base64-decoded PostReceive arguments
The change to base64-encoding the third argument to PostReceive in
gitlab-shell made our Sidekiq ArgumentsLogger a little less useful.
This change adds decoded data to the log statement.
Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/20381
See merge request !5547
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The change to base64-encoding the third argument to PostReceive in
gitlab-shell made our Sidekiq ArgumentsLogger a little less useful.
This change adds a log statement for the decoded data.
Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/20381
|
|\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Support pending invitation project members importing projects
Adds support for pending invitation project members on Import/Export - previously the import would fail.
Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19973
- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [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 you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !5683
|
| | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Optimize "cache_key" using a concern
## What does this MR do?
This MR adds a concern (used by Issue and Note) that provides an optimized version of Rails' `cache_key` method. See 77c8520e2ecd70520757aed0fbdf434643b60234 for more details.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No, though a spell check would be appreciated.
## Why was this MR needed?
When loading a lot of data from Redis (e.g. an issue with lots of notes) quite a large amount of time is spent in generating cache keys. This is due to multiple reasons such as:
* Rails trying to figure out if it should use `updated_at` or `updated_on` using somewhat inefficient code
* Rails relying on pluralization logic to figure out how to generate a cache namespace using a model name
* Rails calling a whole bunch of methods in general in the process of generating cache keys
In short, Rails is trying to cater to every possible use case, at the cost of performance.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13651 is not directly related but I ran into this `cache_key` problem when looking into said issue.
See merge request !5715
|
| |/ / / /
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
This concern provides an optimized/simplified version of the "cache_key"
method. This method is about 9 times faster than the default "cache_key"
method.
The produced cache keys _are_ different from the previous ones but this
is worth the performance improvement. To showcase this I set up a
benchmark (using benchmark-ips) that compares FasterCacheKeys#cache_key
with the regular cache_key. The output of this benchmark was:
Calculating -------------------------------------
cache_key 4.825k i/100ms
cache_key_fast 21.723k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
cache_key 59.422k (± 7.2%) i/s - 299.150k
cache_key_fast 543.243k (± 9.2%) i/s - 2.694M
Comparison:
cache_key_fast: 543243.4 i/s
cache_key: 59422.0 i/s - 9.14x slower
To see the impact on real code I applied these changes and benchmarked
Issue#referenced_merge_requests. For an issue referencing 10 merge
requests these changes shaved off between 40 and 60 milliseconds.
|
|\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Update templates
There was a copy pasta in the templates, therefor another MR with updates.
See merge request !5714
|
| | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Branch permissions layout
CE part of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/179
Related javascript code has been refactored and also layout has been updated.
![Screen_Shot_2016-08-04_at_3.23.19_PM](/uploads/a0f6165e255b3f93dcb80eaa3f3318e4/Screen_Shot_2016-08-04_at_3.23.19_PM.png)
See merge request !5652
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Since .panel-heading is a bit different from bootstrap, using .panel-title for h3 looks different.
So with this .panel-title will look good again inheriting custom properties our app sets for .panel-heading
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Since there’s only one dropdown of this type we don’t need a class to create this dropdown masively.
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
We should stop passing events as a parameter since we cannot call the method programatically without faking or creating an event even when that event is not entirely required.
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Since there are only one dropdown of each type there are no need to create a class to initialize multiple elements with the same CSS class name.
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Also updates protect branch list
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | |_|_|_|_|_|/
| |/| | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Add migration-related tips to the "Merge Request Guidelines" doc
## Why was this MR needed?
To avoid issues like #20606 cropping up again.
See merge request !5700
|
| | | |/ / / /
| | |/| | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
[ci-skip]
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Document that webhook secret token is sent in X-Gitlab-Token HTTP header
## What does this MR do?
Note that the secret token is sent in the X-Gitlab-Token header on the webhook documentation page, as well as directly below the secret token field on the webhook settings form.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No.
## Why was this MR needed?
It took me a while to figure out how to verify the token in my hook endpoint. Issue #18256 is where I found how to do it.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#18256
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [x] [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
- [x] All builds are passing
- [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 you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
Closes #18256
See merge request !5664
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Hope to avoid CHANGELOG conflicts. Credit myself for the MR.
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | |_|_|_|_|/ / /
| |/| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
fix: respect data-attribute 'skip-users' in user_selects
Backport https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests/604 to CE, so that JS file is the same in both versions. Thanks @hwdegroot!
No CHANGELOG needed because this code path isn't used anywhere in CE at the moment.
See merge request !5685
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
* Respect parameters of each individual select,
instead of the global.
* Update skipped users in approver search when removed from default approvers.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | |_|_|_|/ / / /
| |/| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Simplify feature introduction note
See merge request !5705
|
| |/ / / / / / /
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
[ci skip]
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Add doc guidelines on documents naming and location
## What does this MR do?
Add guidelines on the structure of the documentation.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/3349
See merge request !5641
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
[ci skip]
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | |_|_|_|_|_|_|/
| |/| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Add 'run tests' development docs from GDK
This adds some documentation that lived in
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-development-kit but which belongs
more in here.
See merge request !5684
|