When displaying the recently pushed branches banner, don't display
branches that have no common history with the default branch. These
branches are usually not meant to be merged, so the banner is just noise
in this case.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2196
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit e1fba517f4)
(cherry picked from commit 2d3c81d4f2)
(cherry picked from commit 624a61b3b8)
With this change, the "You pushed on branch xyz" banner will be
displayed when either the viewed repository or its base repo (if the
current one's a fork) has pull requests enabled. Previously it only
displayed if the viewed repo had PRs enabled.
Furthermore, if the viewed repository is an original repository that the
viewing user has a fork of, if the forked repository has recently pushed
branches, then the banner will appear for the original repository too.
In this case, the notification will include branches from the viewing
user's fork, and branches they pushed to the base repo, too.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2195
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit a29f10661d)
(cherry picked from commit 70c5e2021d)
(cherry picked from commit 48b25be67a)
[GITEA] Fix cancelled migration deletion modal
- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1473 made that dangerous
actions such as deletion also would need to type in the owner's name.
This was apparently not reflected to the deletion modal for migrations
that failed or were cancelled.
(cherry picked from commit c38dbd6f88)
(cherry picked from commit 7c07592d01)
(cherry picked from commit 78637af2b6)
[SHARED] make confirmation clearer for dangerous actions
- Currently the confirmation for dangerous actions such as transferring
the repository or deleting it only requires the user to ~~copy paste~~
type the repository name.
- This can be problematic when the user has a fork or another repository
with the same name as an organization's repository, and the confirmation
doesn't make clear that it could be deleting the wrong repository. While
it's mentioned in the dialog, it's better to be on the safe side and
also add the owner's name to be an element that has to be typed for
these dangerous actions.
- Added integration tests.
(cherry picked from commit bf679b24dd)
(cherry picked from commit 1963085dd9)
(cherry picked from commit fb94095d19)
(cherry picked from commit e1d1e46afe)
(cherry picked from commit 93993029e4)
(cherry picked from commit df3b058179)
(cherry picked from commit 8ccc6b9cba)
(cherry picked from commit 9fbe28fca3)
(cherry picked from commit 4ef2be6dc7)
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1873
Moved test from repo_test.go to forgejo_confirmation_repo_test.go to
avoid conflicts.
(cherry picked from commit 83cae67aa3)
(cherry picked from commit 447009ff56)
(cherry picked from commit 72c0a6150a)
(cherry picked from commit 8ee9c070b9)
(cherry picked from commit 89aba06403)
(cherry picked from commit 798407599f)
(cherry picked from commit 41c9a2606b)
(cherry picked from commit a57b214e36)
(cherry picked from commit fd287a9134)
Sometimes you need to work on a feature which depends on another (unmerged) feature.
In this case, you may create a PR based on that feature instead of the main branch.
Currently, such PRs will be closed without the possibility to reopen in case the parent feature is merged and its branch is deleted.
Automatic target branch change make life a lot easier in such cases.
Github and Bitbucket behave in such way.
Example:
$PR_1$: main <- feature1
$PR_2$: feature1 <- feature2
Currently, merging $PR_1$ and deleting its branch leads to $PR_2$ being closed without the possibility to reopen.
This is both annoying and loses the review history when you open a new PR.
With this change, $PR_2$ will change its target branch to main ($PR_2$: main <- feature2) after $PR_1$ has been merged and its branch has been deleted.
This behavior is enabled by default but can be disabled.
For security reasons, this target branch change will not be executed when merging PRs targeting another repo.
Fixes #27062
Fixes #18408
---------
Co-authored-by: Denys Konovalov <kontakt@denyskon.de>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Follow #22719
### Major changes
1. `ServerError` doesn't do format, so remove the `%s`
2. Simplify `RenderBranchFeed` (slightly)
3. Remove unused `BranchFeedRSS`
4. Make `feed.RenderBranchFeed` respect `EnableFeed` config
5. Make `RepoBranchTagSelector.vue` respect `EnableFeed` setting,
otherwise there is always RSS icon
6. The `(branchURLPrefix + item.url).replace('src', 'rss')` doesn't seem
right for all cases, for example, the string `src` could appear in
`branchURLPrefix`, so we need a separate `rssURLPrefix`
7. The `<a>` in Vue menu needs `@click.stop`, otherwise the menu itself
would be triggered at the same time
8. Change `<a><button></button></a>` to `<a role=button>`
9. Use `{{PathEscapeSegments .TreePath}}` instead of `{{range $i, $v :=
.TreeNames}}/{{$v}}{{end}}`
Screenshot of changed parts:
<details>
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2114189/234315538-66603694-9093-48a8-af33-83575fd7a018.png)
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2114189/234315786-f1efa60b-012e-490b-8ce2-d448dc6fe5c9.png)
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2114189/234334941-446941bc-1baa-4256-8850-ccc439476cda.png)
</details>
### Other thoughts
Should we remove the RSS icon from the branch dropdown list? It seems
too complex for a list UI, and users already have the chance to get the
RSS feed URL from "branches" page.
---------
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix #16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
The `go-licenses` make task introduced in #21034 is being run on make vendor
and occasionally causes an empty go-licenses file if the vendors need to
change. This should be moved to the generate task as it is a generated file.
Now because of this change we also need to split generation into two separate
steps:
1. `generate-backend`
2. `generate-frontend`
In the future it would probably be useful to make `generate-swagger` part of `generate-frontend` but it's not tolerated with our .drone.yml
Ref #21034
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>