- Motivation for this PR is that I'd noticed that a lot of repeated
calls are happening between the test functions and that certain tests
weren't using helper functions like `GetCSRF`, therefor this refactor of
the integration tests to keep it: clean, small and hopefully more
maintainable and understandable.
- There are now three integration tests: `TestBlockUser`,
`TestBlockUserFromOrganization` and `TestBlockActions` (and has been
moved in that order in the source code).
- `TestBlockUser` is for doing blocking related actions as an user and
`TestBlockUserFromOrganization` as an organisation, even though they
execute the same kind of tests they do not share any database calls or
logic and therefor it currently doesn't make sense to merge them
together (hopefully such oppurtinutiy might be presented in the future).
- `TestBlockActions` now contain all tests for actions that should be
blocked after blocking has happened, most tests now share the same doer
and blocked users and a extra fixture has been added to make this
possible for the comment test.
- Less code, more comments and more re-use between tests.
(cherry picked from commit ffb393213d)
1. The "web" package shouldn't depends on "modules/context" package,
instead, let each "web context" register themselves to the "web"
package.
2. The old Init/Free doesn't make sense, so simplify it
* The ctx in "Init(ctx)" is never used, and shouldn't be used that way
* The "Free" is never called and shouldn't be called because the SSPI
instance is shared
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Add a new "exclusive" option per label. This makes it so that when the
label is named `scope/name`, no other label with the same `scope/`
prefix can be set on an issue.
The scope is determined by the last occurence of `/`, so for example
`scope/alpha/name` and `scope/beta/name` are considered to be in
different scopes and can coexist.
Exclusive scopes are not enforced by any database rules, however they
are enforced when editing labels at the models level, automatically
removing any existing labels in the same scope when either attaching a
new label or replacing all labels.
In menus use a circle instead of checkbox to indicate they function as
radio buttons per scope. Issue filtering by label ensures that only a
single scoped label is selected at a time. Clicking with alt key can be
used to remove a scoped label, both when editing individual issues and
batch editing.
Label rendering refactor for consistency and code simplification:
* Labels now consistently have the same shape, emojis and tooltips
everywhere. This includes the label list and label assignment menus.
* In label list, show description below label same as label menus.
* Don't use exactly black/white text colors to look a bit nicer.
* Simplify text color computation. There is no point computing luminance
in linear color space, as this is a perceptual problem and sRGB is
closer to perceptually linear.
* Increase height of label assignment menus to show more labels. Showing
only 3-4 labels at a time leads to a lot of scrolling.
* Render all labels with a new RenderLabel template helper function.
Label creation and editing in multiline modal menu:
* Change label creation to open a modal menu like label editing.
* Change menu layout to place name, description and colors on separate
lines.
* Don't color cancel button red in label editing modal menu.
* Align text to the left in model menu for better readability and
consistent with settings layout elsewhere.
Custom exclusive scoped label rendering:
* Display scoped label prefix and suffix with slightly darker and
lighter background color respectively, and a slanted edge between them
similar to the `/` symbol.
* In menus exclusive labels are grouped with a divider line.
---------
Co-authored-by: Yarden Shoham <hrsi88@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Fixes#21206
If user and viewer are equal the method should return true.
Also the common organization check was wrong as `count` can never be
less then 0.
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Gusted