Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
- Add condition to ensure doer isn't nil when using it.
- Added unit test.
- Resolves #2055
(cherry picked from commit 8f1a74fb29)
(cherry picked from commit 60ac881776)
(cherry picked from commit 5fdc461ac5)
(cherry picked from commit 70623e8da1)
(cherry picked from commit 1d5153aaf6)
(cherry picked from commit 3927f0c8b2)
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.
To avoid duplicated load of the same data in an HTTP request, we can set
a context cache to do that. i.e. Some pages may load a user from a
database with the same id in different areas on the same page. But the
code is hidden in two different deep logic. How should we share the
user? As a result of this PR, now if both entry functions accept
`context.Context` as the first parameter and we just need to refactor
`GetUserByID` to reuse the user from the context cache. Then it will not
be loaded twice on an HTTP request.
But of course, sometimes we would like to reload an object from the
database, that's why `RemoveContextData` is also exposed.
The core context cache is here. It defines a new context
```go
type cacheContext struct {
ctx context.Context
data map[any]map[any]any
lock sync.RWMutex
}
var cacheContextKey = struct{}{}
func WithCacheContext(ctx context.Context) context.Context {
return context.WithValue(ctx, cacheContextKey, &cacheContext{
ctx: ctx,
data: make(map[any]map[any]any),
})
}
```
Then you can use the below 4 methods to read/write/del the data within
the same context.
```go
func GetContextData(ctx context.Context, tp, key any) any
func SetContextData(ctx context.Context, tp, key, value any)
func RemoveContextData(ctx context.Context, tp, key any)
func GetWithContextCache[T any](ctx context.Context, cacheGroupKey string, cacheTargetID any, f func() (T, error)) (T, error)
```
Then let's take a look at how `system.GetString` implement it.
```go
func GetSetting(ctx context.Context, key string) (string, error) {
return cache.GetWithContextCache(ctx, contextCacheKey, key, func() (string, error) {
return cache.GetString(genSettingCacheKey(key), func() (string, error) {
res, err := GetSettingNoCache(ctx, key)
if err != nil {
return "", err
}
return res.SettingValue, nil
})
})
}
```
First, it will check if context data include the setting object with the
key. If not, it will query from the global cache which may be memory or
a Redis cache. If not, it will get the object from the database. In the
end, if the object gets from the global cache or database, it will be
set into the context cache.
An object stored in the context cache will only be destroyed after the
context disappeared.
