While users can edit their own pronouns, the admin UI enables an admin
to edit *any* user setting. As such, pronouns should be editable here,
too.
For the sake of simplicity, the input here is a simple text input field,
rather than a dropdown.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
When converting from a `user_model.User` to `api.User` or
`api.UserSettings`, convert the `Pronouns` field too.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Resolves #29965.
---
Manually tested this by:
- Following the
[installation](https://docs.gitea.com/next/installation/install-with-docker#basics)
guide (but built a local Docker image instead)
- Creating 2 users, one who is the `Owner` of a newly-created repository
and the other a `Collaborator`
- Had the `Collaborator` create a PR that the `Owner` reviews
- `Collaborator` resolves conversation and `Owner` merges PR
And with this change we see that we can no longer see re-request review
button for the `Owner`:
<img width="1351" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-25 at 12 39 18 AM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/60799661/bcd9c579-3cf7-474f-a51e-b436fe1a39a4">
(cherry picked from commit 242b331260925e604150346e61329097d5731e77)
- Remove `gitea.com/lunny/dingtalk_webhook` as dependency, we only use
two structs which are small enough to be recreated in Forgejo and don't
need to rely on the dependency.
- Existing tests (thanks @oliverpool) prove that this has no effect.
- `user_model.DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses` related code was added in
Gogs as part to delete inactive users, however since then the related
code to delete users has changed and this code now already delete email
addresses of the user, it's therefore not needed anymore to
`DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses`.
- The call to `DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses` can actually cause issues.
As the associated user might not have been deleted, because it
was not older than the specified `olderThan` argument. Therefore causing
a database inconsistency and lead to internal server errors if the user
tries to activate their account.
- Adds unit test to verify correct behavior (fails without this patch).
- Currently protected branch rules do not apply to admins, however in
some cases (like in the case of Forgejo project) you might also want to
apply these rules to admins to avoid accidental merges.
- Add new option to configure this on a per-rule basis.
- Adds integration tests.
- Resolves #65
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28297
This PR also fixed a problem that it needs a database transaction when
removing the WIP title.
---
Resolves #2771
Also partially ports gitea#29783
(cherry picked from commit 17d7ab5ad4ce3d0fbc1251572c22687c237a30b1)
The fix against the race incorrectly assumes the sha of the commit being
pushed belongs to the base repository. It finds the highest possible
pull request ID from the head repository instead of looking it up in
the base repository.
Figuring out if a PR was created in the future based on the highest
index of the base repository would require collecting all of them
because there is no way to know in advance which repository may be
involved in the race.
Fixing this race can be done either by:
* Introducing a new field in the pull_request table https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2842
which feels more like a hack than a real solution
* Refactoring the logic
which would be a significant undertaking
The race has been in the codebase for a very long time and manifests
itself in the CI, when events happen in quick succession. The only
concrete manifestation was however fixed by https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Since this race now only exists in theory and not in practice, let's
revert this bugous commit until a proper solution is implemented.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2817
This reverts commit 036f1eddc5.
Conflicts:
services/pull/pull.go
