Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Select Git revision
  • move-gl-dropdown
  • improve-table-pagination-spec
  • move-markdown-preview
  • winh-fix-merge-request-spec
  • master default
  • index-namespaces-lower-name
  • winh-single-karma-test
  • 10-3-stable
  • 36782-replace-team-user-role-with-add_role-user-in-specs
  • winh-modal-internal-state
  • tz-ide-file-icons
  • 38869-milestone-select
  • update-autodevops-template
  • jivl-activate-repo-cookie-preferences
  • qa-add-deploy-key
  • docs-move-article-ldap
  • 40780-choose-file
  • 22643-manual-job-page
  • refactor-cluster-show-page-conservative
  • dm-sidekiq-versioning
  • v10.4.0.pre
  • v10.3.0
  • v10.3.0-rc5
  • v10.3.0-rc4
  • v10.3.0-rc3
  • v10.3.0-rc2
  • v10.2.5
  • v10.3.0-rc1
  • v10.0.7
  • v10.1.5
  • v10.2.4
  • v10.2.3
  • v10.2.2
  • v10.2.1
  • v10.3.0.pre
  • v10.2.0
  • v10.2.0-rc4
  • v10.2.0-rc3
  • v10.1.4
  • v10.2.0-rc2
40 results

repository.rb

Blame
Forked from GitLab.org / GitLab FOSS
Source project has a limited visibility.
  • Lin Jen-Shin's avatar
    c0dfa0c6
    Not sure why, but apparently SHA works better · c0dfa0c6
    Lin Jen-Shin authored 
    It's very weird that source_commit.raw_commit and
rugged.branches[merge_request.target_branch].target
should be completely the same. I checked with ==
and other values which proved that both should be
the same, but still tests cannot pass for:
spec/services/merge_requests/refresh_service_spec.rb

I decided to give it up. We could just use SHA and
that works fine anyway.
    c0dfa0c6
    History
    Not sure why, but apparently SHA works better
    Lin Jen-Shin authored 
    It's very weird that source_commit.raw_commit and
rugged.branches[merge_request.target_branch].target
should be completely the same. I checked with ==
and other values which proved that both should be
the same, but still tests cannot pass for:
spec/services/merge_requests/refresh_service_spec.rb

I decided to give it up. We could just use SHA and
that works fine anyway.