Update the `TestTagViewWithoutRelease` test case with another assert:
one that checks that the release title is properly displayed.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Use setting.AppWorkPath instead of filepath.Dir(setting.AppPath). It
is the common denominator between:
* models/unittest/testdb.go:MainTest
* tests/test_utils.go:InitTest
which makes it usable in unit tests as well as integration tests.
- When a user goes opens a symlink file in Forgejo, the file would be
rendered with the path of the symlink as content.
- Add a button that is shown when the user opens a *valid* symlink file,
which means that the symlink must have an valid path to an existent
file and after 999 follows isn't a symlink anymore.
- Return the relative path from the `FollowLink` functions, because Git
really doesn't want to tell where an file is located based on the blob ID.
- Adds integration tests.
The elements were hidden on small screens to preserve space and the
icons still conveyed the meaning for users with intact eye vision.
However, the names were no longer exposed to screen readers, and their
users usually cannot obtain the meaning from the icons.
Adding aria-labels to the affected templates results in certain
complexity due to the DOM, so instead I decided to use some accessible
CSS tricks to move the content off the screen instead of hiding it. It
should remain accessible for most screen readers.
While it might be favourable to have distinct focus and hover styling,
having no focus styling at all makes keyboard navigation very difficult.
Some people consider :focus to be equal to a keyboard-driven :hover, so
I'm moving the focus pseudo-classes from being a no-op to adding the
hover styling.
Now that semantic versions are used, the major version must be used
instead of major.minor to distinguish releases with breaking changes.
Before:
Forgejo v1.21.1-0, tags 1.21.1-0 and 1.21
Forgejo v1.21.2-0, tags 1.21.2-0 and 1.21
Forgejo v1.22.1-0, tags 1.22.1-0 and 1.22
After
Forgejo v7.0.0 tags 7.0.0 and 7
Forgejo v7.0.1 tags 7.0.1 and 7
Forgejo v7.1.2 tags 7.1.2 and 7
Forgejo v8.0.1 tags 8.0.1 and 8
- Disable the CODEOWNERS feature for forked repositories, as it would
otherwise inadvertently request reviewers when for example a pull
request is opened against a forked repository to propose changes to an
existant pull request in the original repository.
- Adds integration test.
- Resolves #2525
- The content history table contains the content history of issues and
comments. For issues they are saved with an comment id of zero.
- If you want to check if the issue has an content history, it should
take into account that SQL has `comment_id = 0`, as it otherwise could
return incorrect results when for example the issue already has an
comment that has an content history.
- Fix the code of `HasIssueContentHistory` to take this into account, it
relied on XORM to generate the SQL from the non-default values of the
struct, this wouldn't generate the `comment_id = 0` SQL as `0` is the
default value of an integer.
- Remove an unncessary log (it's not the responsibility of `models`
code to do logging).
- Adds unit test.
- Resolves #2513
- This was incorrectly copied from the `swaggerCommitList` struct, which
on the other hand does set `X-Total`, but the API handler that uses this
response only sets `X-Total-Count`.
Gitea versions are
* A.B.C
* A.B.C+rc-0
* A.B.C+dev-5-g4fb9056
If Forgejo versions are:
* X.Y.Z+A.B.C
* X.Y.Z-rc0+A.B.C
* X.Y.Z-dev-1232-g4fb905687+A.B.C
It is non trivial for a client trying to sort out if the server
responding to `/api/v1/version` is Forgejo or Gitea. The Forgejo
version changes to be:
* X.Y.Z+gitea-A.B.C
* X.Y.Z-rc0+gitea-A.B.C
* X.Y.Z-dev-1232-g4fb905687+gitea-A.B.C
and a client can now:
* Split the version with +
* If the second part (the metadata) exists and contains "gitea", the
answer server is Forgejo
* Otherwise it is Gitea
- Update github.com/bufbuild/connect-go to
https://github.com/connectrpc/connect-go.
- This is a fork that's actively maintained and is recommend by the
original library. Looking at the recent release notes, it looks like
going in the right direction what one would expect of a library, no
strange features being added, lots of improvements.
- There's still an indirect dependency by
`code.gitea.io/actions-proto-go` on a old version of `connect-go`.
- Implement the commit mail selection feature for the other supported
Git operations that can be done trough the web UI.
- Adds integration tests (goodluck reviewing this).
- Ref: #1788
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
- The CODEOWNER feature relies on the changed files to determine which
reviewers should be added according to the `CODEOWNER` file.
- The current approach was to 'diff' between the base and head branch,
which seems logical but fail in practice when the pull request is out of
date with the base branch. Therefore it should instead diff between the
head branch and the merge base of the head and base branch, so only the
actual affected files by the pull requests are used, the same approach
is used by the diff of an unmerged pull request.
- Add integration testing (for the feature as well).
- Resolves #2458
In #2445, I lifted out the fork button into its own template, but did
not update it properly. This resulted in the fork button's counter not
displaying, and pointing to the wrong place too.
This patch updates the template to account for it moving to a separate
file, and also adds test cases to verify the button is display as it
should be.
Fixes #2494.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
When mentioning a user in a comment, or a similar place, sometimes one
would wish to use a possessive: `As per @user's suggestion` or somesuch.
This patch modifies the `mentionPattern` used to find mentions, to allow
- and then ignore - apostrophes and whatever comes after them.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Continuation of #2444, which introduced the commit
bf7fb89178 but only added
the label and the tests.
The tooltip explaining what AGit is and its advantages is not
meant to advertise AGit - it is meant to inform the reader that
is presumably not familiar with the workflow that they will not
be able to find a fork or a branch associated with the Pull Request
as a direct consequence of this workflow.
Issue #2474 mentions that we should show instructions on how to
fetch an AGit-created Pull Request, and this is the plan. However,
this may take time, so I might as well make the label a bit more
"complete" and less out-of-place for now if we do not manage to
improve these instructions until the next release (Forgejo v1.22).
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2474
