Noticed a SQL in gitea.com has a bigger load. It seems both `is_pull`
and `pin_order` are not indexed columns in the database.
```SQL
SELECT `id`, `repo_id`, `index`, `poster_id`, `original_author`, `original_author_id`, `name`, `content`, `content_version`, `milestone_id`, `priority`, `is_closed`, `is_pull`, `num_comments`, `ref`, `pin_order`, `deadline_unix`, `created_unix`, `updated_unix`, `closed_unix`, `is_locked`, `time_estimate` FROM `issue` WHERE (repo_id =?) AND (is_pull = 0) AND (pin_order > 0) ORDER BY pin_order
```
I came across a comment
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/24406#issuecomment-1527747296
from @delvh , which presents a more reasonable approach. Based on this,
this PR will migrate all issue and pull request pin data from the
`issue` table to the `issue_pin` table. This change benefits larger
Gitea instances by improving scalability and performance.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
When listing commits, Gitea attempts to retrieve the actual user based
on the commit email. Querying users one by one from the database is
inefficient. This PR optimizes the process by batch querying users by
email, reducing the number of database queries.
1. Fix incorrect `MentionCount` (actually it seems to be deadcode,
affects nothing)
2. Remove fallback sha1 support for time limit token
3. Use route middleware `reqRepoActionsWriter` for `ArtifactsDeleteView`
4. Use clearer message "Failed to authenticate user" instead of "Verify"
when auth fails
5. `tests/integration/benchmarks_test.go` is not quite right, actually
it is never used, so delete it.
6. Remove or update TODO comments
Estimated time represented in hours it might be convenient to
have tracked time represented in the same way to be compared and
managed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sysoev, Vladimir <i@vsysoev.ru>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Resolve#32341
~Depends on #27151~
- [x] It will display a checkbox of deleting the head branch on the pull
request view page when starting an auto-merge task.
- [x] Add permission check before deleting the branch
- [x] Add delete branch comment for those closing pull requests because
of head branch or base branch was deleted.
- [x] Merge `RetargetChildrenOnMerge` and `AddDeletePRBranchComment`
into `service.DeleteBranch`.
Follow #33045. There are two updates on `Set Merged`, which should be in
one transaction.
This also introduced some refactors for changeissuestatus to make it
more clear.
This PR fixes a performance problem when reviewing a pull request in a
big instance which have many records in the `review` table.
Traditionally, we should add more indexes in that table. But since
dismissed reviews of 1 pull request will not be too many as expected in
a common repository. Filtering reviews in the memory should be more
quick .
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
1. fix incorrect tests, for example: BeanExists doesn't do assert and
shouldn't be used
2. remove unnecessary test functions
3. introduce DumpQueryResult to help to see the database rows during
test (at least I need it)
```
====== DumpQueryResult: SELECT * FROM action_runner_token ======
- # row[0]
id: 1
token: xeiWBL5kuTYxGPynHCqQdoeYmJAeG3IzGXCYTrDX
owner_id: 0
...
```
The behaviors of closing issues and reopening issues are very different.
So splitting it into two different functions makes it easier to
maintain.
- [x] Split ChangeIssueStatus into CloseIssue and ReopenIssue both at
the service layer and model layer
- [x] Rename `isClosed` to `CloseOrReopen` to make it more readable.
- [x] Add transactions for ReopenIssue and CloseIssue
---------
Co-authored-by: Zettat123 <zettat123@gmail.com>
Replace #26661, fix#25979
Not perfect, but usable and much better than before. Since it is quite
complex, I am not quite sure whether there would be any regression, if
any, I will fix in first time.
I have tested the related pages many times: issue list, milestone issue
list, project view, user issue list, org issue list.
Resolve#31492
The response time for the Pull Requests API has improved significantly,
dropping from over `2000ms` to about `350ms` on my local machine. It's
about `6` times faster.
A key area for further optimization lies in batch-fetching data for
`apiPullRequest.ChangedFiles, apiPullRequest.Additions, and
apiPullRequest.Deletions`.
Tests `TestAPIViewPulls` does exist and new tests added.
- This PR also fixes some bugs in `GetDiff` functions.
- This PR also fixes data inconsistent in test data. For a pull request,
the head branch's reference should be equal to the reference in
`pull/xxx/head`.
Redesign the time tracker side bar, and add "time estimate" support (in "1d 2m" format)
Closes#23112
---------
Co-authored-by: stuzer05 <stuzer05@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Yarden Shoham <hrsi88@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR removes (almost) all path tricks, and introduces "renderhelper"
package.
Now we can clearly see the rendering behaviors for comment/file/wiki,
more details are in "renderhelper" tests.
Fix#31411 , fix#18592, fix#25632 and maybe more problems. (ps: fix
#32608 by the way)
Use zero instead of 9999-12-31 for deadline
Fix#32291
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This PR do some minor improvements for head branch display on pull
request view UI.
- [x] Remove the link if the head branch has been deleted with a
tooltip, so that users will not result in a 404 page
- [x] Display a label if this pull request is an agit based one.
A regression in #31924 caused there to be two `issues.review.comment`
keys in the English language locale file, leading to a problem when
reading PR review histories that contain comments.
This snapshot addresses this by making the newer key unique.
If the assign the pull request review to a team, it did not show the
members of the team in the "requested_reviewers" field, so the field was
null. As a solution, I added the team members to the array.
fix#31764
#26996
Added default sorting for milestones by name.
Additional, name for sorting closestduedate and furthestduedate was
broken, so I fixed it.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This PR enhances the labels handling in issue_search by optimizing the
SQL query and de-duplicate the IDs when generating the query string.
---------
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.com>
fix a bug from #30490
`prs.GetIssueIDs()` will also be used in other places, e.g.
`InvalidateCodeComments`
so we should not add `if pr.Issue == nil` in it, or if `pr.Issue` is
already loaded, you will not get the issueID in the results list and
this is not an expected result.
So this will caused a bug:
before calling `InvalidateCodeComments`, all `pr.Issues` in `prs` are
loaded, so `issueIDs` in this function will always be `[]`.
Lunny Xiao
wxiaoguang
Vladimir Sysoev
Zettat123
TheFox0x7
silverwind
hiifong
Illya Marchenko
Oleksandr Redko
wangjingcun
6543
Kemal Zebari
Lauris BH
william-allspice
Edip Emre Bodur
yp05327
Bartlomiej Komendarczuk
Chl