09 Apr, 2014

1 commit

25 Mar, 2014

1 commit

28 Feb, 2014

1 commit

17 Dec, 2013

1 commit

13 Dec, 2013

1 commit

02 Oct, 2013

1 commit

  • 45de7d26   Issue-4769 - Unable to update case of label ... Browse File » 
    Labels are saved in the database with the case they were originally created with.
Before this change if a user created a label with the same text but different case
the label would use the original case and no new label would be created in the
database. With this change, labels are now case-sensitive.

Steps to test:

1. Before this change, create a new issue with a new label "FIxMe"
2. Edit the issue and change the label to "FixMe"
3. Note that the label reverted to "FIxMe"
4. Apply this change
5. Edit the issue again and change the label to "FixMe"
Note that the new case was preserved. If you also look in the database in the "tags" table you will see that both labels are present - "FIxMe" and "FixMe".
    Drew Blessing
     

09 Sep, 2013

1 commit

25 Aug, 2013

1 commit

  • c8a115c0   Link issues from comments and automatically close them ... Browse File » 
    Any mention of Issues, MergeRequests, or Commits via GitLab-flavored markdown
references in descriptions, titles, or attached Notes creates a back-reference
Note that links to the original referencer. Furthermore, pushing commits with
commit messages that match a (configurable) regexp to a project's default
branch will close any issues mentioned by GFM in the matched closing phrase.
If accepting a merge request would close any Issues in this way, a banner is
appended to the merge request's main panel to indicate this.
    ash wilson
     

21 Aug, 2013

2 commits

10 Aug, 2013

1 commit

08 Aug, 2013

1 commit

17 Jul, 2013

1 commit

  • 3d7194f0   Merge Request on forked projects ... Browse File » 
    The good:

 - You can do a merge request for a forked commit and it will merge properly (i.e. it does work).
 - Push events take into account merge requests on forked projects
 - Tests around merge_actions now present, spinach, and other rspec tests
 - Satellites now clean themselves up rather then recreate

The questionable:

 - Events only know about target projects
 - Project's merge requests only hold on to MR's where they are the target
 - All operations performed in the satellite

The bad:

  -  Duplication between project's repositories and satellites (e.g. commits_between)

(for reference: http://feedback.gitlab.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/3456722-merge-requests-between-projects-repos)

Fixes:

Make test repos/satellites only create when needed
-Spinach/Rspec now only initialize test directory, and setup stubs (things that are relatively cheap)
-project_with_code, source_project_with_code, and target_project_with_code now create/destroy their repos individually
-fixed remote removal
-How to merge renders properly
-Update emails to show project/branches
-Edit MR doesn't set target branch
-Fix some failures on editing/creating merge requests, added a test
-Added back a test around merge request observer
-Clean up project_transfer_spec, Remove duplicate enable/disable observers
-Ensure satellite lock files are cleaned up, Attempted to add some testing around these as well
-Signifant speed ups for tests
-Update formatting ordering in notes_on_merge_requests
-Remove wiki schema update
Fixes for search/search results
-Search results was using by_project for a list of projects, updated this to use in_projects
-updated search results to reference the correct (target) project
-udpated search results to print both sides of the merge request

Change-Id: I19407990a0950945cc95d62089cbcc6262dab1a8
    Izaak Alpert
     

19 Jun, 2013

1 commit

17 Jun, 2013

2 commits

14 Jun, 2013

1 commit

10 Jun, 2013

1 commit

09 Apr, 2013

2 commits

03 Apr, 2013

1 commit

15 Mar, 2013

1 commit

28 Feb, 2013

1 commit

19 Feb, 2013

2 commits

18 Feb, 2013

2 commits

22 Jan, 2013

1 commit

19 Jan, 2013

1 commit

03 Jan, 2013

1 commit

19 Nov, 2012

1 commit

30 Oct, 2012

1 commit

10 Oct, 2012

1 commit

  • 16ceae89   Separate observing of Note and MergeRequests ... Browse File » 
    * Move is_assigned? and is_being_xx? methods to IssueCommonality

  This is behavior merge requests have in common with issues. Moved
  methods to IssueCommonality role. Put specs directly into
  merge_request_spec because setup differs for issues and MRs
  specifically in the "closed" factory to use.

* Add MergeRequestObserver. Parallels IssueObserver in almost every way.

  Ripe for refactoring.

* Rename MailerObserver to NoteObserver

  With merge request observing moved out of MailerObserver, all that
  was left was Note logic. Renamed to NoteObserver, added tests and
  updated application config for new observer names. Refactored
  NoteObserver to use the note's author and not rely on current_user.

* Set current_user for MergeRequestObserver

  IssueObserver and MergeRequestObserver are the only observers that
  need a reference to the current_user that they cannot look up on
  the objects they are observing.
    Robb Kidd
     

09 Oct, 2012

1 commit

27 Sep, 2012

2 commits

26 Sep, 2012

1 commit

08 Sep, 2012

1 commit

17 Aug, 2012

1 commit

10 Aug, 2012

1 commit