- 10 Apr, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
- 06 Apr, 2017 1 commit
-
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
Added changelog
-
- 04 Apr, 2017 1 commit
-
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
-
- 03 Apr, 2017 3 commits
-
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
This only changes behaviour for masters, as developers are already prevented from updating/deleting tags without the Protected Tags feature
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
-
- 31 Mar, 2017 2 commits
-
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
-
James Edwards-Jones authored
-
- 13 Mar, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Adam Niedzielski authored
-
- 12 Jan, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
- 16 Dec, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Starting version 2.11, git changed the way the pre-receive flow works. - Previously, the new potential objects would be added to the main repo. If the pre-receive passes, the new objects stay in the repo but are linked up. If the pre-receive fails, the new objects stay orphaned in the repo, and are cleaned up during the next `git gc`. - In 2.11, the new potential objects are added to a temporary "alternate object directory", that git creates for this purpose. If the pre-receive passes, the objects from the alternate object directory are migrated to the main repo. If the pre-receive fails the alternate object directory is simply deleted. 2. In our workflow, the pre-recieve script (in `gitlab-shell) calls the `/allowed` endpoint, which calls out directly to git to perform various checks. These direct calls to git do _not_ have the necessary environment variables set which allow access to the "alternate object directory" (explained above). Therefore these calls to git are not able to access any of the new potential objects to be added during this push. 3. We fix this by accepting the relevant environment variables (GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES, GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY) on the `/allowed` endpoint, and then include these environment variables while calling out to git. 4. This commit includes (whitelisted) these environment variables while making the "force push" check. A `Gitlab::Git::RevList` module is extracted to prevent `ForcePush` from being littered with these checks.
-
- 17 Nov, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
- 13 Sep, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Paco Guzman authored
GitlabShell verify access sending ‘_any’ as the changes made on the git command, in those cases Gitlab::Checks::ChangeAccess won’t receive a branch_name so we don’t need to check for access to the protected branches on that repository. So we avoid some git operations in case the are not cached (empty_repo?) and some database lookups to get protected branches. These request is happening in every push.
-
- 12 Aug, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Alejandro Rodríguez authored
-
- 11 Aug, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Scott Le authored
DRY code + fix rubocop Add more test cases Append to changelog DRY changes list find_url service for merge_requests use GET for getting merge request links remove files rename to get_url_service reduce loop add test case for cross project refactor tiny thing update changelog
-
- 18 Jul, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Rémy Coutable authored
This reverts commit 530f5158. See !4892. Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
- 13 Jul, 2016 4 commits
-
-
Robert Speicher authored
This reverts commit 9ca633eb, reversing changes made to fb229bbf.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Fix typos, minor styling errors. 2. Use single quotes rather than double quotes in `user_access_spec`. 3. Test formatting.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/4892#note_12892160 - This is more consistent.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Don't use case statements for dispatch anymore. This leads to a lot of duplication, and makes the logic harder to follow. 2. Remove duplicated logic. - For example, the `can_push_to_branch?` exists, but we also have a different way of checking the same condition within `change_access_check`. - This kind of duplication is removed, and the `can_push_to_branch?` method is used in both places. 3. Move checks returning true/false to `UserAccess`. - All public methods in `GitAccess` now return an instance of `GitAccessStatus`. Previously, some methods would return true/false as well, which was confusing. - It makes sense for these kinds of checks to be at the level of a user, so the `UserAccess` class was repurposed for this. The prior `UserAccess.allowed?` classmethod is converted into an instance method. - All external uses of these checks have been migrated to use the `UserAccess` class 4. Move the "change_access_check" into a separate class. - Create the `GitAccess::ChangeAccessCheck` class to run these checks, which are quite substantial. - `ChangeAccessCheck` returns an instance of `GitAccessStatus` as well. 5. Break out the boolean logic in `ChangeAccessCheck` into `if/else` chains - this seems more readable. 6. I can understand that this might look like overkill for !4892, but I think this is a good opportunity to clean it up. - http://martinfowler.com/bliki/OpportunisticRefactoring.html
-