- 20 Apr, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
-
- 03 Apr, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Rémy Coutable authored
FFaker can generate data that randomly break our test suite. This simplifies our factories and use sequences which are more predictive. Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
- 24 Feb, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
-
- 23 Feb, 2017 2 commits
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
-
Sean McGivern authored
These specs never ran due to incorrect indentation: the `context` blocks were inside the `before`. Additionally, `GitHooksService` now has to yield itself to callers, and `GitAccess` never appears to have had an `allowed?` method.
-
- 05 Feb, 2017 1 commit
-
- 25 Jan, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Robert Speicher authored
-
- 20 Dec, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
and move those checks to be private. Feedback: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/7383#note_20285012 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/7383#note_20285279
-
- 08 Dec, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
- 18 Nov, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
- 17 Nov, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
- 16 Nov, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
checking user permission.
-
- 11 Nov, 2016 3 commits
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
-
- 09 Nov, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Douwe Maan authored
Ensure external users are not able to clone disabled repositories. Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23788 See merge request !2017 Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
-
- 01 Nov, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
Due to different way of handling owners of a project, they were not allowed to fetch CI sources for project.
-
- 18 Oct, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Sean McGivern authored
These were introduced in: <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests/645>
-
- 20 Sep, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
- 16 Sep, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
- 15 Sep, 2016 3 commits
-
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
- 17 Aug, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Ali Ibrahim authored
-
- 04 Aug, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
- 29 Jul, 2016 4 commits
-
-
Timothy Andrew authored
- Likely introduced during an improper conflict resolution.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. In the context of protected branches. 2. Test this behaviour.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. Remove `Project#developers_can_push_to_protected_branch?` since it isn't used anymore. 2. Remove `Project#developers_can_merge_to_protected_branch?` since it isn't used anymore.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. The crux of this change is in `UserAccess`, which looks through all the access levels, asking each if the user has access to push/merge for the current project. 2. Update the `protected_branches` factory to create access levels as necessary. 3. Fix and augment `user_access` and `git_access` specs.
-
- 19 Jul, 2016 1 commit
-
-
Kamil Trzcinski authored
-
- 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 5 commits
-
-
Robert Speicher authored
This reverts commit 9ca633eb, reversing changes made to fb229bbf.
-
Timothy Andrew authored
-
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
-
Timothy Andrew authored
1. When a merge request is being merged, save the merge commit SHA in the `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` database column. 2. The `pre-receive` hook looks for any locked (in progress) merge request with `in_progress_merge_commit_sha` matching the `newrev` it is passed. 3. If it finds a matching MR, the merge is legitimate. 4. Update `git_access_spec` to test the behaviour we added here. Also refactored this spec a bit to make it easier to add more contexts / conditions.
-
Mathias Vestergaard authored
- Cherry-picked from `mvestergaard:branch-protection-dev-merge` - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/4220
-
- 05 Jul, 2016 4 commits
-
-
Patricio Cano authored
-
Patricio Cano authored
-
Patricio Cano authored
-
Patricio Cano authored
-