GitLab FOSS merge requestshttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests2017-09-13T03:26:21Zhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13176WIP: Display the username and email of the creator of a project in the webhoo...2017-09-13T03:26:21Zusername-removed-479391WIP: Display the username and email of the creator of a project in the webhook dataOpening this merge request to get feedback on the change will update tests/documentation later.
## What does this MR do?
Adds extra fields about the creator of a project in the system webhook sent on projects events.
## Are there ...Opening this merge request to get feedback on the change will update tests/documentation later.
## What does this MR do?
Adds extra fields about the creator of a project in the system webhook sent on projects events.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
Fixes the feature request #35597
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#35597https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13101Fix duplicated event for tag removal2017-07-28T17:50:16Zusername-removed-710385Fix duplicated event for tag removal## What does this MR do?
The merge request removes some redundant calls, which led to duplicate events for removed tags.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes.
I'm not entirely sure my assess...## What does this MR do?
The merge request removes some redundant calls, which led to duplicate events for removed tags.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes.
I'm not entirely sure my assessment how the event is triggered is correct. This should be verified to ensure that the change doesn't break unrelated functionality.
## Why was this MR needed?
Issue #35406: Two events are created for a delete tag event and also two notifications.
Diagnosis:
When a tag is removed, the PostReceive worker is being triggered,
which in turn triggers GitTagPushService to process the tag changes.
This in turn uses EventCreateService to track a push and fires
project hooks and services. Thus the explicit calls in Tags::DestroyService
are redundant, leading to duplicate events being tracked.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#35406 (and the closed issue: #35506)username-removed-710385username-removed-710385https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13085WIP: Fix broken links in HTML push emails2017-07-26T15:58:44Zusername-removed-1291415WIP: Fix broken links in HTML push emails## What does this MR do?
Bug fix for broken HTML links in push emails, issue: #35543
## Tests
I tested the following cases: changing, adding, renaming and removing files having "Disable code diffs" in the configuration of the "Email...## What does this MR do?
Bug fix for broken HTML links in push emails, issue: #35543
## Tests
I tested the following cases: changing, adding, renaming and removing files having "Disable code diffs" in the configuration of the "Emails on push" service enabled and disabled: in call cases the "changed files" section contained proper links to the respective gitlab server.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #35543https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13083WIP: Add group wiki support2017-09-21T11:26:49Zusername-removed-43728WIP: Add group wiki supportThis MR adds wiki page support to groups.
General workflow looks like:
- on group settings page, user can select `Wiki Project`. In this dropdown exist all group projects with enabled wiki.
- on group page user sees `Wiki` tab
- on...This MR adds wiki page support to groups.
General workflow looks like:
- on group settings page, user can select `Wiki Project`. In this dropdown exist all group projects with enabled wiki.
- on group page user sees `Wiki` tab
- on this tab user sees wiki from selected project. All wiki behavior occurs in group context (all links behave as group links)
I'm not sure in dropdown on group settings page (I like dropdowns from MR page)
Tests and docs not implemented/fixed yet.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] Changes for admin area
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #4037Douwe MaanDouwe Maanhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13055WIP: Gitlab CI run pipelines based on commit filename matching2017-10-04T23:33:05Zusername-removed-823308WIP: Gitlab CI run pipelines based on commit filename matching## What does this MR do?
This is an RFC WIP MR meant to close #19232, as a PoC. This is not ready for merge.
The attempt here was to add a key to the job config for Gitlab CI, so that the job is only run if any of the files in the most...## What does this MR do?
This is an RFC WIP MR meant to close #19232, as a PoC. This is not ready for merge.
The attempt here was to add a key to the job config for Gitlab CI, so that the job is only run if any of the files in the most recent commit match. The issue called for a child key of `only` called `paths`. However, implementing it in this way would require more refactoring of current `only`-config logic than we were willing to take for our PoC.
Instead, we introduced a brand new config called `include_paths`, which accepts a list of filename regexes that will be checked against the filenames of the last commit. It is configured like so:
```yml
job:
script: ...
include_paths:
- app/
- *.rb
- ...
```
Theoretically, it should be simple to also add functionality for `exclude_paths`, it will just take more time commitment to accomplish.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
The main thing to look out for is whether my code is conforming to architectural style of Gitlab's codebase. Also, I am open to better ideas on how to input the list of filenames from the commit into the `CI::GitlabCiYamlProcessor` class. I prefer to have it check all commits since the last time the pipeline ran (last "push"?), instead of just the last commit.
## Why was this MR needed?
This offers finer-grain control over what jobs to run. This can result in considerable cost and time savings for lengthy build pipelines, that simple commits would otherwise trigger.
The linked issue documents this use-case well.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
**Note that not all criteria is met, but that's because this is just a PoC. This is not ready for merge yet.**
**Also, note that CI pipeline builds from my fork are failing. Some failures, such as rubocop, are things that I need to look at before merge. The reasons for other failures, like karma and spinach, are unknown to me.
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
#19232username-removed-823308username-removed-823308https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13011Add new “Troubleshooting Git” page to General documentation (Admin)2017-08-07T21:00:52Zusername-removed-900429Add new “Troubleshooting Git” page to General documentation (Admin)See the general Documentation guidelines http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html
## What does this MR do?
Adds documentation which lists potential resolutions for 'Broken pipe' errors on git push, as
suggested on...See the general Documentation guidelines http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html
## What does this MR do?
Adds documentation which lists potential resolutions for 'Broken pipe' errors on git push, as
suggested on #25016.
Mentioning @axil, @rspeicher, @marcia, @SeanPackham because this is a new document, as per
the [Documentation styleguide](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html#headings).
Closes #25016
EE-version: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests/2490
## Moving docs to a new location?
No
See the guidelines: http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html#changing-document-location
- [x] Make sure the old link is not removed and has its contents replaced with a link to the new location.
- [x] Make sure internal links pointing to the document in question are not broken.
- [x] Search and replace any links referring to old docs in GitLab Rails app, specifically under the `app/views/` directory.
- [x] If working on CE, submit an MR to EE with the changes as well.Achilleas PipinellisAchilleas Pipinellishttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12927Fix bug with avatar dialog selection after unsuccessful updating group settings2017-07-21T16:39:28Zusername-removed-409815Fix bug with avatar dialog selection after unsuccessful updating group settings## What does this MR do?
Allow user to select avatar when group settings update failed
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
User could not select avatar file if errors occurs
## ...## What does this MR do?
Allow user to select avatar when group settings update failed
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
User could not select avatar file if errors occurs
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/33369https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12926Added key name to error flash if deploy key already exists2017-07-21T18:14:32Zusername-removed-409815Added key name to error flash if deploy key already exists## What does this MR do?
Added key title for message on flash, while adding already existing deploy key.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
The problem is when user has a...## What does this MR do?
Added key title for message on flash, while adding already existing deploy key.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
The problem is when user has a lot of keys he don't know which key is matching and can't change the machine key.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
![Screen_Shot_2017-07-17_at_22.49.28](/uploads/80ff2918468b7ad73f3e6500df4da0a3/Screen_Shot_2017-07-17_at_22.49.28.png)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/292769.5username-removed-409815username-removed-409815https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12898Avoid alt overflow when loading error of avatars2017-09-25T22:12:11Zusername-removed-100770Avoid alt overflow when loading error of avatars## What does this MR do?
Fixes overflow of `alt` message in `img` of avatars when errors on loading these avatar images.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No.
Integration of `.avatar` and `.avatar-co...## What does this MR do?
Fixes overflow of `alt` message in `img` of avatars when errors on loading these avatar images.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No.
Integration of `.avatar` and `.avatar-container` in CSS can be considered, but it is out of scope of this MR.
## Why was this MR needed?
Overlapping `alt` of avatar on other content is a bad UX in visual and in accessibility, and so should be improved.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
| before | after |
|--------|-------|
| ![avatar-overflow-before](/uploads/ca6f642fe720dd1f2cb1bda1e6aa6476/avatar-overflow-before.png) | ![avatar-overflow-after](/uploads/9e63c4cfb97b5e6ff0fec9eefb54a5a8/avatar-overflow-after.png) |
| from #35157 | - |
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [n/a] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [n/a] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #35157username-removed-100770username-removed-100770https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12894WIP: Include container repositories in storage statistics2017-07-25T00:03:15Zusername-removed-423116WIP: Include container repositories in storage statistics## What does this MR do?
Adds missing storage statistics for container images, as a follow-up to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/7754
Since the metrics need to be fetched via the container registry API, this ...## What does this MR do?
Adds missing storage statistics for container images, as a follow-up to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/7754
Since the metrics need to be fetched via the container registry API, this is implemented as a cronjob which runs daily.
This development is sponsored by @siemens (/cc @bufferoverflow)
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I'm not sure how to handle the API versioning (`doc/development/api_styleguide.md` doesn't say anything about it), do I need to update the code in `lib/api/v3` as well?
## Why was this MR needed?
Administrators/group owners should have an overview about storage used for container images.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [x] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Fixes #27929Kamil TrzcińśkiKamil Trzcińśkihttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12858Sort dashboard personal projects by latest activity2017-07-17T06:33:03Zusername-removed-1413257Sort dashboard personal projects by latest activity## What does this MR do?
Sorts personal projects in the dashboard based on the latest activity.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
none
## Why was this MR needed?
It is generally better to list the p...## What does this MR do?
Sorts personal projects in the dashboard based on the latest activity.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
none
## Why was this MR needed?
It is generally better to list the projects based on the latest activity or update that was done.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
![before](/uploads/9285b88ca15222ee176ccb7dcea41943/before.png)
before
![after](/uploads/929601af3658314694ed1b52294f335b/after.png)
after
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
yes
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Solves Issue #34879
gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#34879https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12830Focus first input text when switching tabs on login form2017-07-25T17:00:24Zusername-removed-408881Focus first input text when switching tabs on login form**Before**
![2017-07-12_22.26.15](/uploads/94999684eb002d05aa65ee5620dc721d/2017-07-12_22.26.15.gif)
**After**
![2017-07-12_22.25.44](/uploads/023ea7f41dd0428316cbed661098d43c/2017-07-12_22.25.44.gif)**Before**
![2017-07-12_22.26.15](/uploads/94999684eb002d05aa65ee5620dc721d/2017-07-12_22.26.15.gif)
**After**
![2017-07-12_22.25.44](/uploads/023ea7f41dd0428316cbed661098d43c/2017-07-12_22.25.44.gif)https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12813Provide option to disable Two-Factor Authentication2018-06-02T23:58:38Zusername-removed-1394376Provide option to disable Two-Factor Authentication## What does this MR do?
Add an application level setting for controlling the option to configure two factor authentication for all users. The three options for configuration include:
* `-1` 2FA is disabled & hidden for all users
...## What does this MR do?
Add an application level setting for controlling the option to configure two factor authentication for all users. The three options for configuration include:
* `-1` 2FA is disabled & hidden for all users
* `0` no restrictions (default)
* `1` 2FA is required for all users
Adding the new `two_factor_auth_restriction` variable, required migrating the `require_two_factor_authentication` variable using the following logic: true => 1, false => 0.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
N/A
## Why was this MR needed?
We wanted the option to fully disable 2FA in order to avoid confusion in our instance where we only allow user's to login via CAS.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
- Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/35017
- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/33508Douwe MaanDouwe Maanhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12810Enable MergeableSelector in scss-lint2017-11-04T07:31:59Zusername-removed-100770Enable MergeableSelector in scss-lint## What does this MR do?
- Enables `MergeableSelector` in scss-lint.
- Fixes all `MergeableSelector` violations.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes, all changes should be checked by multiple review...## What does this MR do?
- Enables `MergeableSelector` in scss-lint.
- Fixes all `MergeableSelector` violations.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes, all changes should be checked by multiple reviewers.
## Why was this MR needed?
To improve SCSS maintainability and consistency.
This rule is relatively likely to tricky as nests tend to be deeper but still effective for various authors.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [n/a] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [n/a] API support added
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Part of #2348510.1https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12804fix: consistent aligning of project list2017-07-28T02:49:24Zusername-removed-400681sebdeckers83@gmail.comfix: consistent aligning of project list## What does this MR do?
Trying to fix uneven alignment of descriptions containing links and emoji in the project list.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I didn't run this. Just used devtools and then...## What does this MR do?
Trying to fix uneven alignment of descriptions containing links and emoji in the project list.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I didn't run this. Just used devtools and then made this change in this file where I saw the relevant selector. Not sure if it breaks other places. Hope there's test coverage for this type of thing. Sorry, new to this project.
## Why was this MR needed?
Clean UI
## Screenshots (if relevant)
Before:
![Screen_Shot_2017-07-12_at_11.06.02_AM](/uploads/0c74a822e9d32ce166c9727c275e88d4/Screen_Shot_2017-07-12_at_11.06.02_AM.png)
After:
![Screen_Shot_2017-07-12_at_11.05.52_AM](/uploads/9e7a02907f76556e23439a02b96e2df4/Screen_Shot_2017-07-12_at_11.05.52_AM.png)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12771Adds message to the wiki page creation hook2017-09-11T15:17:49Zusername-removed-945495Adds message to the wiki page creation hookHello, this is my first MR to gitlab and is my take on adding the commit message to a wiki page creating hook, as described by #19301. I'm not sure if I'm testing this in the best place, however I couldn't find a better spot.
~~The p...Hello, this is my first MR to gitlab and is my take on adding the commit message to a wiki page creating hook, as described by #19301. I'm not sure if I'm testing this in the best place, however I couldn't find a better spot.
~~The patch actually does more than simply adding the commit message to the web hook, it also sets the message on the object attributes after it is created.~~ I think it makes sense, a smaller alternative would be simply merging the commit message on `#hook_attrs`. In the end, the simpler alternative seems better, because there is a complex interaction between golumn commit messages and the cached value used as response on `#message`.https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12769Update index.md to ellaborate on port configuration and accessing Prometheus ...2017-09-21T11:37:59Zusername-removed-53094Update index.md to ellaborate on port configuration and accessing Prometheus from non-localhost hosts.See the general Documentation guidelines http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html
## What does this MR do?
Previously, the documentation did not (to my knowledge) mention that Prometheus was designed "to only listen ...See the general Documentation guidelines http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html
## What does this MR do?
Previously, the documentation did not (to my knowledge) mention that Prometheus was designed "to only listen on localhost by default", and has since been updated to [allow for non-localhost hosts to access it](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/29127#note_24926579). The documentation now accounts for this and describes the configuration required to allow for external access to the Prometheus service.username-removed-53094username-removed-53094https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12724Resolve "Projects API: filter 'with_issues_enabled=true' returns projects wit...2017-07-18T16:49:44Zusername-removed-742162Resolve "Projects API: filter 'with_issues_enabled=true' returns projects with 'issues_enabled=false'"## What does this MR do?
#34055 Fix the Projects API returning projects when filtering with `issues_enabled=true` if they have the `issues` feature set to private.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Th...## What does this MR do?
#34055 Fix the Projects API returning projects when filtering with `issues_enabled=true` if they have the `issues` feature set to private.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
The same probably also has to be done with `with_merge_requests_enabled`, but I did not include it in this MR. I can change it if needed.
## Why was this MR needed?
#34055.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [X] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [X] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [X] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #34055https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12599WIP: Provide tagger information on Tags API2017-09-12T10:05:09Zusername-removed-1420023WIP: Provide tagger information on Tags API## What does this MR do?
It includes the name and email of the author of an annotated tag and the time of the tagging to the Tag API.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes. I'm writing them down and I...## What does this MR do?
It includes the name and email of the author of an annotated tag and the time of the tagging to the Tag API.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Yes. I'm writing them down and I'll update this section ASAP.
Feedback on this ongoing work is more than welcome. :-)
## Why was this MR needed?
I'll update this section with a short summary. For now, please see issue #33021 for more information.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
- [ ] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #33021.https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/12390Some suggestions on existing translations for Simplified Chinese2018-06-09T11:37:13Zusername-removed-1410274Some suggestions on existing translations for Simplified Chinese## What does this MR do?
I18N Translations for Simplified Chinese.
## What are the relevant merge numbers?
MR !12356.## What does this MR do?
I18N Translations for Simplified Chinese.
## What are the relevant merge numbers?
MR !12356.