So I found this [linter](https://github.com/Riverside-Healthcare/djlint)
which features a mode for go templates, so I gave it a try and it did
find a number of valid issue, like unbalanced tags etc. It also has a
number of bugs, I had to disable/workaround many issues.
Given that this linter is written in python, this does add a dependency
on `python` >= 3.8 and `poetry` to the development environment to be
able to run this linter locally.
- `e.g.` prefixes on placeholders are removed because the linter had a
false-positive on `placeholder="e.g. cn=Search"` for the `attr=value`
syntax and it's not ideal anyways to write `e.g.` into a placeholder
because a placeholder is meant to hold a sample value.
- In `templates/repo/settings/options.tmpl` I simplified the logic to
not conditionally create opening tags without closing tags because this
stuff confuses the linter (and possibly the reader as well).
Clarify the "link-action" behavior:
> // A "link-action" can post AJAX request to its "data-url"
> // Then the browser is redirect to: the "redirect" in response, or
"data-redirect" attribute, or current URL by reloading.
And enhance the "link-action" to support showing a modal dialog for
confirm. A similar general approach could also help PRs like
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22344#discussion_r1062883436
> // If the "link-action" has "data-modal-confirm(-html)" attribute, a
confirm modal dialog will be shown before taking action.
And a lot of duplicate code can be removed now. A good framework design
can help to avoid code copying&pasting.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Fix#25133
Thanks @wxiaoguang @silverwind.
I'm sorry I made a mistake, it will be fixed in this PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25130
The old code uses `$(this).next()` to get `dismiss-review-modal`.
At first, it will get `$(#dismiss-review-modal)`, but the next time it
will get `$(#dismiss-review-modal).next();`
and then `$(#dismiss-review-modal).next().next();`.
Because div `dismiss-review-modal` will be removed when
`dismiss-review-btn` clicked.
Maybe the right usage is adding `show-modal` class and `data-modal`
attribute.
Feel free to close this if there isn't interest.
The tree view looks amazing, and all of our users are really enjoying it
(major kudos to developers!), but only IF I tell them it exists!
Essentially, the file tree view as it is effectively undiscoverable.
This PR changes the default state for the tree view to open, which
should significantly help with discoverability.
An alternative could be to reserve more horizontal space, as a typical
accordion panel would look (eg. VS Code), eg.
This addressees some things from #24406 that came up after the PR was
merged. Mostly from @delvh.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Don't really know a better name for this. I've gone through some Forms
and added missing HTML attributes (mostly `maxlength`). I tried to fill
the Forms with dummy Data and see if Gitea throws a Error (e.g. maximum
length). If yes, I added the missing HTML attribute.
While working on this, I discovered that the Form to add OAuth2 Apps
just silently fails when filled with invalid data, so I fixed that too.
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves#2175.
## Screenshots
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
We can reuse the recently created subtemplate here. I also checked the
whole templates for similar constructs, these appear to be the only one.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
- Replace `<table>` with flexbox
- Add issue modification time and issue number
- Remove big title
- Replace tabs with menu items
- Add clicked item deletion on back button cache restoration
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/16321
Provided a webhook trigger for requesting someone to review the Pull
Request.
Some modifications have been made to the returned `PullRequestPayload`
based on the GitHub webhook settings, including:
- add a description of the current reviewer object as
`RequestedReviewer` .
- setting the action to either **review_requested** or
**review_request_removed** based on the operation.
- adding the `RequestedReviewers` field to the issues_model.PullRequest.
This field will be loaded into the PullRequest through
`LoadRequestedReviewers()` when `ToAPIPullRequest` is called.
After the Pull Request is merged, I will supplement the relevant
documentation.
Currently if pull requests are disabled on a fork but enabled on a base
repo, creating/editing/deleting files does not offer the option to
create a pull request. This change enables creating a pull request for
the base repo in that case.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
There was some recent discussion about this in Discord `ui-design`
channel and the conclusion was that
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/24305 should have fixed their
OS font installation to have semibold weights.
I have now tested this 601 weight on a Windows 10 machine on Firefox
myself, and I immediately noticed that bold was excessivly bold and
rendering as 700 because browsers are biased towards bolder fonts. So
revert this back to the previous value.
Visually, nothing should have changed.
Changes include
- Convert most `<a [no href]>` to `<button>` when (re-)viewing files:
- `<a [no href]>` are, by HTML definition, not a link and hence cannot
be focused
- `<a class="ui button">` can now be clicked (again?) using
<kbd>Enter</kbd>
- Previously, the installed keypress handler on `.ui.button` elements
disabled it for links somehow
- The `(un)escape file`, the `expand section` and the `expand/collapse
file` buttons can now be focused (and subsequently clicked using only
the keyboard)
- You can now press <kbd>Space</kbd> on a focused `View file` checkbox
to mark the file as viewed.
- previously, this was impossible as this checkbox listened on the wrong
event listener
The `add code comment` button has been left inaccessible for now as it
requires quite a bit of extra logic so that it is unhidden when it is
focused (you can otherwise focus it without seeing it as you are not
hovering on the corresponding line).
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
This PR is to allow users to specify status checks by patterns. Users
can enter patterns in the "Status Check Pattern" `textarea` to match
status checks and each line specifies a pattern. If "Status Check" is
enabled, patterns cannot be empty and user must enter at least one
pattern.
Users will no longer be able to choose status checks from the table. But
a __*`Matched`*__ mark will be added to the matched checks to help users
enter patterns.
Benefits:
- Even if no status checks have been completed, users can specify
necessary status checks in advance.
- More flexible. Users can specify a series of status checks by one
pattern.
Before:
After:
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
silverwind
