Select Git revision
protected_branches_controller.rb
-
Timothy Andrew authored
!581 has a lot of changes that would cause merge conflicts if not properly backported to CE. This commit/MR serves as a better foundation for gitlab-org/gitlab-ee!581. = Changes = 1. Move from `has_one {merge,push}_access_level` to `has_many`, with the `length` of the association limited to `1`. This is _effectively_ a `has_one` association, but should cause less conflicts with EE, which is set to `has_many`. This has a number of related changes in the views, specs, and factories. 2. Make `gon` variable loading more consistent (with EE!581) in the `ProtectedBranchesController`. Also use `::` to prefix the `ProtectedBranches` services, because this is required in EE. 3. Extract a `ProtectedBranchAccess` concern from the two access level models. This concern only has a single `humanize` method here, but will have more methods in EE. 4. Add `form_errors` to the protected branches creation form. This is not strictly required for EE compatibility, but was an oversight nonetheless.
Timothy Andrew authored!581 has a lot of changes that would cause merge conflicts if not properly backported to CE. This commit/MR serves as a better foundation for gitlab-org/gitlab-ee!581. = Changes = 1. Move from `has_one {merge,push}_access_level` to `has_many`, with the `length` of the association limited to `1`. This is _effectively_ a `has_one` association, but should cause less conflicts with EE, which is set to `has_many`. This has a number of related changes in the views, specs, and factories. 2. Make `gon` variable loading more consistent (with EE!581) in the `ProtectedBranchesController`. Also use `::` to prefix the `ProtectedBranches` services, because this is required in EE. 3. Extract a `ProtectedBranchAccess` concern from the two access level models. This concern only has a single `humanize` method here, but will have more methods in EE. 4. Add `form_errors` to the protected branches creation form. This is not strictly required for EE compatibility, but was an oversight nonetheless.
Code owners
Assign users and groups as approvers for specific file changes. Learn more.