Fix#2616
This PR adds a new sort option for exclusive labels.
For exclusive labels, a new property is exposed called "order", while in
the UI options are populated automatically in the `Sort` column (see
screenshot below) for each exclusive label scope.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
* Make `SearchMode` have default value if it is empty
* Add some comments for the "match" queries
* Fix a copy-paste mistake in `buildMatchQuery` (`db.go`)
* Add missing `q.Analyzer = repoIndexerAnalyzer`, it is in old code,
although I do not see real difference ....
Replace all contexts in tests with go1.24 t.Context()
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Replace #26661, fix#25979
Not perfect, but usable and much better than before. Since it is quite
complex, I am not quite sure whether there would be any regression, if
any, I will fix in first time.
I have tested the related pages many times: issue list, milestone issue
list, project view, user issue list, org issue list.
When you are entering a number in the issue search, you likely want the
issue with the given ID (code internal concept: issue index).
As such, when a number is detected, the issue with the corresponding ID
will now be added to the results.
Fixes#4479
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fix#31327
This is a quick patch to fix the bug.
Some parameters are using 0, some are using -1. I think it needs a
refactor to keep consistent. But that will be another PR.
This PR split the `Board` into two parts. One is the struct has been
renamed to `Column` and the second we have a `Template Type`.
But to make it easier to review, this PR will not change the database
schemas, they are just renames. The database schema changes could be in
future PRs.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Should resolve#30642.
Before this commit, we were treating an empty `?sort=` query parameter
as the correct sorting type (which is to sort issues in descending order
by their created UNIX time). But when we perform `sort=latest`, we did
not include this as a type so we would sort by the most recently updated
when reaching the `default` switch statement block.
This commit fixes this by considering the empty string, "latest", and
just any other string that is not mentioned in the switch statement as
sorting by newest.
Noteable additions:
- `redefines-builtin-id` forbid variable names that shadow go builtins
- `empty-lines` remove unnecessary empty lines that `gofumpt` does not
remove for some reason
- `superfluous-else` eliminate more superfluous `else` branches
Rules are also sorted alphabetically and I cleaned up various parts of
`.golangci.yml`.
This PR uses `db.ListOptions` instead of `Paginor` to make the code
simpler.
And it also fixed the performance problem when viewing /pulls or
/issues. Before the counting in fact will also do the search.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
just some refactoring bits towards replacing **util.OptionalBool** with
**optional.Option[bool]**
---------
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Fix#14459
The following users can add/remove review requests of a PR
- the poster of the PR
- the owner or collaborators of the repository
- members with read permission on the pull requests unit
It will fix#28268 .
<img width="1313" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/cb1e07d5-7a12-4691-a054-8278ba255bfc">
<img width="1318" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/4fd60820-97f1-4c2c-a233-d3671a5039e9">
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
But need to give up some features:
<img width="1312" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/281c0d51-0e7d-473f-bbed-216e2f645610">
However, such abandonment may fix#28055 .
## Backgroud
When the user switches the dashboard context to an org, it means they
want to search issues in the repos that belong to the org. However, when
they switch to themselves, it means all repos they can access because
they may have created an issue in a public repo that they don't own.
<img width="286" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/182dcd5b-1c20-4725-93af-96e8dfae5b97">
It's a confusing design. Think about this: What does "In your
repositories" mean when the user switches to an org? Repos belong to the
user or the org?
Whatever, it has been broken by #26012 and its following PRs. After the
PR, it searches for issues in repos that the dashboard context user owns
or has been explicitly granted access to, so it causes #28268.
## How to fix it
It's not really difficult to fix it. Just extend the repo scope to
search issues when the dashboard context user is the doer. Since the
user may create issues or be mentioned in any public repo, we can just
set `AllPublic` to true, which is already supported by indexers. The DB
condition will also support it in this PR.
But the real difficulty is how to count the search results grouped by
repos. It's something like "search issues with this keyword and those
filters, and return the total number and the top results. **Then, group
all of them by repo and return the counts of each group.**"
<img width="314" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/5206eb20-f8f5-49b9-b45a-1be2fcf679f4">
Before #26012, it was being done in the DB, but it caused the results to
be incomplete (see the description of #26012).
And to keep this, #26012 implement it in an inefficient way, just count
the issues by repo one by one, so it cannot work when `AllPublic` is
true because it's almost impossible to do this for all public repos.
1bfcdeef4c/modules/indexer/issues/indexer.go (L318-L338)
## Give up unnecessary features
We may can resovle `TODO: use "group by" of the indexer engines to
implement it`, I'm sure it can be done with Elasticsearch, but IIRC,
Bleve and Meilisearch don't support "group by".
And the real question is, does it worth it? Why should we need to know
the counts grouped by repos?
Let me show you my search dashboard on gitea.com.
<img width="1304" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/2bca2d46-6c71-4de1-94cb-0c9af27c62ff">
I never think the long repo list helps anything.
And if we agree to abandon it, things will be much easier. That is this
PR.
## TODO
I know it's important to filter by repos when searching issues. However,
it shouldn't be the way we have it now. It could be implemented like
this.
<img width="1316" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/99ee5f21-cbb5-4dfe-914d-cb796cb79fbe">
The indexers support it well now, but it requires some frontend work,
which I'm not good at. So, I think someone could help do that in another
PR and merge this one to fix the bug first.
Or please block this PR and help to complete it.
Finally, "Switch dashboard context" is also a design that needs
improvement. In my opinion, it can be accomplished by adding filtering
conditions instead of "switching".
Previously only the first term had to be matched. That default
Meilisearch behavior makes sense for e.g. some kind of autocomplete to
find and select a single result. But for filtering issues it means you
can't narrow down results by adding more terms.
This is also more consistent with other indexers and GitHub.
---
Reference:
https://www.meilisearch.com/docs/reference/api/search#matching-strategy
See https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27718#issuecomment-1773743014
. Add a test to ensure its behavior.
Why this test uses `ProjectBoardID=0`? Because in `SearchOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means what it is. But in `IssueOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means there is no condition, and
`ProjectBoardID=db.NoConditionID` means the board ID = 0.
It's really confusing. Probably it's better to separate the db search
engine and the other issue search code. It's really two different
systems. As far as I can see, `IssueOptions` is not necessary for most
of the code, which has very simple issue search conditions.
1. remove unused function `MoveIssueAcrossProjectBoards`
2. extract the project board condition into a function
3. use db.NoCondition instead of -1. (BTW, the usage of db.NoCondition
is too confusing. Is there any way to avoid that?)
4. remove the unnecessary comment since the ctx refactor is completed.
5. Change `b.ID != 0` to `b.ID > 0`. It's more intuitive but I think
they're the same since board ID can't be negative.
This PR removed `unittest.MainTest` the second parameter
`TestOptions.GiteaRoot`. Now it detects the root directory by current
working directory.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
As described in the title.
Some points:
1. Why need those tests?
Because `buildIssueOverview` is not well tested, there are several
continuous bugs in the issue overview webpage.
2. Why in indexer_test.go?
It's hard to put those tests in `./modules/indexer/issue/db/db_test.go`
because those tests need 'real' data in db mocked by fixtures instead of
random data in `./modules/indexer/issue/internal/tests`. When using
'real' data(`unittest.PrepareTestDatabase`), `InitIssueIndexer` and the
package `init()` function of `indexer` are required to init indexer.
3. Why only db?
The other three indexer engines are well tested by random data and it's
okay to also test them with 'real' data in db mocked by fixtures. Any
follow-up PR is welcome.
4. Those tests are really basic, any more complicated tests are welcome.
5. I think it's also necessary to add tests in `TestAPISearchIssues`
in`api_test_issue.go` and `TestIssues` in `home_test.go`
Since the issue indexer has been refactored, the issue overview webpage
is built by the `buildIssueOverview` function and underlying
`indexer.Search` function and `GetIssueStats` instead of
`GetUserIssueStats`. So the function is no longer used.
I moved the relevant tests to `indexer_test.go` and since the search
option changed from `IssueOptions` to `SearchOptions`, most of the tests
are useless now.
We need more tests about the db indexer because those tests are highly
connected with the issue overview webpage and now this page has several
bugs.
Any advice about those test cases is appreciated.
---------
Co-authored-by: CaiCandong <50507092+CaiCandong@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR has multiple parts, and I didn't split them because
it's not easy to test them separately since they are all about the
dashboard page for issues.
1. Support counting issues via indexer to fix#26361
2. Fix repo selection so it also fixes#26653
3. Keep keywords in filter links.
The first two are regressions of #26012.
After:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/71dfea7e-d9e2-42b6-851a-cc081435c946
Thanks to @CaiCandong for helping with some tests.
Fix#24662.
Replace #24822 and #25708 (although it has been merged)
## Background
In the past, Gitea supported issue searching with a keyword and
conditions in a less efficient way. It worked by searching for issues
with the keyword and obtaining limited IDs (as it is heavy to get all)
on the indexer (bleve/elasticsearch/meilisearch), and then querying with
conditions on the database to find a subset of the found IDs. This is
why the results could be incomplete.
To solve this issue, we need to store all fields that could be used as
conditions in the indexer and support both keyword and additional
conditions when searching with the indexer.
## Major changes
- Redefine `IndexerData` to include all fields that could be used as
filter conditions.
- Refactor `Search(ctx context.Context, kw string, repoIDs []int64,
limit, start int, state string)` to `Search(ctx context.Context, options
*SearchOptions)`, so it supports more conditions now.
- Change the data type stored in `issueIndexerQueue`. Use
`IndexerMetadata` instead of `IndexerData` in case the data has been
updated while it is in the queue. This also reduces the storage size of
the queue.
- Enhance searching with Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch, make them
fully support `SearchOptions`. Also, update the data versions.
- Keep most logic of database indexer, but remove
`issues.SearchIssueIDsByKeyword` in `models` to avoid confusion where is
the entry point to search issues.
- Start a Meilisearch instance to test it in unit tests.
- Add unit tests with almost full coverage to test
Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch indexer.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
A couple of notes:
* Future changes should refactor arguments into a struct
* This filtering only is supported by meilisearch right now
* Issue index number is bumped which will cause a re-index
