If we leave this as a regular migration, we could have the following flow:

1. Application knows nothing about scopes.
2. First migration runs, all existing personal access tokens have `api` scope
3. Application still knows nothing about scopes.
4. Second migration runs, all tokens created after this point have no scope
5. Application still knows nothing about scopes.
6. Tokens created at this time _should have the API scope, but instead have no scope_
7. Application code is reloaded, application knows about scopes
8. Tokens created after this point only have no scope if the user deliberately
   chooses to have no scopes.

Point #6 is the problem here. To avoid this, we move the second migration to a
"post" migration, which runs after the application code is deployed/reloaded.

`valid_api_token?` is a better name. Scopes are just (potentially) one facet of
a "valid" token.

- Previously, AccessTokenValidationService was a module, and all its  public
methods accepted a token. It makes sense to convert it to a class which accepts
a token during initialization.

- Also rename the `sufficient_scope?` method to `include_any_scope?`

- Based on feedback from @rymai

- The `scopes_form` partial can be used in the `admin/applications` view
  as well

- Don't allow partials to access instance variables directly. Instead, pass
  in the instance variables as local variables, and use `local_assigns.fetch`
  to assert that the variables are passed in as expected.

- Change a few instances of `render :partial` to `render`

- Remove an instance of `required: false` in a view, since this is the default

- Inline many instances of a local variable (`ip = 'ip'`) in `auth_spec`

Split the existing feature spec into both feature and controller specs.
Feature specs assert on browser DOM, and controller specs assert on database
state.

- Use whitespace to separate the setup, expectation and teardown phases.

- Based on @dbalexandre's review
- Extract token validity conditions into two separate methods, for
  personal access tokens and OAuth tokens.

- The list of scopes that's displayed while creating a personal access
  token is identical to the list that's displayed while creating an OAuth
  application. Extract these into a partial.

- The list of scopes that's displayed while in the show page for an OAuth token
  in the profile settings and admin settings are identical. Extract these into
  a partial.

- Mainly whitespace changes.

- Require the migration adding the `scope` column to the
  `personal_access_tokens` table to have downtime, since API calls will
  fail if the new code is in place, but the migration hasn't run.

- Minor refactoring - load `@scopes` in a `before_action`, since we're
  doing it in three different places.

- This module is used for git-over-http, as well as JWT.

- The only valid scope here is `api`, currently.

- Move the `Oauth2::AccessTokenValidationService` class to
  `AccessTokenValidationService`, since it is now being used for
  personal access token validation as well.

- Each API endpoint declares the scopes it accepts (if any). Currently,
  the top level API module declares the `api` scope, and the `Users` API
  module declares the `read_user` scope (for GET requests).

- Move the `find_user_by_private_token` from the API `Helpers` module to
  the `APIGuard` module, to avoid littering `Helpers` with more
  auth-related methods to support `find_user_by_private_token`

Fix eslint errors

Fixes current eslint errors on master

See merge request !8127

Fix spec/features/admin/admin_active_tab_spec.rb

See merge request !8130

Don't open Asciidoc module twice

See merge request !8119

Add Okta authentication documentation

Related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/14122

See merge request !8104

Add `gitlab_rails['auto_migrate'] = false` to HA docs for Redis/PG [ci skip]

## What does this MR do?

In a high availability configuration, the Redis and PostgreSQL nodes
should not attempt to run database migrations. In fact, trying will
result in errors about not providing a database password. To
prevent errors and confusion, add this configurtion to these nodes'
`gitlab.rb` file.

See merge request !8112

Merge branch '25144-gitlab-ce-mattermost-slash-command-for-issue-create-needs-better-documentation' into 'master'

Resolve "gitlab-ce mattermost slash command for issue create needs better documentation"

## What does this MR do?

Updates the documentation and the <kbd>help</kbd> command to be clearer, having the keys used to add a newline in chat clients (both Mattermost and Slack). 

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

* Are the available commands (via <kbd>help</kbd>) being formatted as `<code>` ?

## Why was this MR needed?

`\n` represents a new line character and doesn't communicate how the user should input the command. Also, to be correct, the documentation should use `<kbd>` instead of `<code>` for user input ([see HTML5 specification](https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-kbd-element))

## Screenshots (if relevant)

| Mattermost | Docs |
| --- | --- |
| ![image](/uploads/539526a14bfd551b7e732dd96c5b7581/image.png) | ![image](/uploads/e3eb099f86c5a32ce3b8954e72c29848/image.png) |

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added
- [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- Tests
  - [ ] All builds are passing

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Closes #25144

See merge request !7850

Improve bulk assignment

This MR improves current implementation of Label dropdown when used for bulk assignment on issuable pages (/:namespace/:project/issues, /:namespace/:project/merge_requests)

Previously this dropdown relied on `<input>` tags to get its active items and also to calculate items with indeterminate state.

Relying on `<input>` tags is not enough when we want to set/get multiple states on a dropdown.

For this case we want to get/set:

- Marked items 
- Unmarked items that were initially marked
- Unmarked items that were initially indeterminate
- Items with indeterminate state.

This MR makes the Label dropdown to save its own state as `data` so it will be easy to get and set whatever state we want no matter if the dropdown is filtering which is the issue that I initially wanted to solve as you can see in the following gif.

**Before** 
![2016-12-07_11.44.48](/uploads/cb697161b8b39cdee72fdbb95a531100/2016-12-07_11.44.48.gif)

**After**
![2016-12-07_11.32.43](/uploads/338255a302de0dd1367474f33232d2a3/2016-12-07_11.32.43.gif)

As you can see in the first gif the `bug` label is removed from the selected issues but the `enhancement` label should set but the `critical` should be kept. This is fixed on the next gif.

Fixes #24877

See merge request !7765

25617 Fix placeholder color of todo filters

## What does this MR do?
Fixes color of placeholder text on todo filters

## Screenshots (if relevant)

![Screen_Shot_2016-12-14_at_1.42.02_PM](/uploads/7ceec3c8fff47825384835bcfb38d77c/Screen_Shot_2016-12-14_at_1.42.02_PM.png)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
  - [ ] Added for this feature/bug
  - [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #25617

See merge request !8094

24824 Add focus state to dropdowns

## What does this MR do?
Adds focus state to dropdown items to increase accessibility. 

## Screenshots (if relevant)

![Screen_Shot_2016-12-01_at_2.47.13_PM](/uploads/d0d2c17dde61314c86155268815091f6/Screen_Shot_2016-12-01_at_2.47.13_PM.png)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
  - [ ] Added for this feature/bug
  - [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #24824

See merge request !7885

Show commit status from latest pipeline

Show commit status from latest pipeline rather than compound status from all pipelines.

Closes #20560

See merge request !7333

Remove unnecessary commits order message

Remove unnecessary message. User should expect that commits are listed in reverse chronological order. Even if they are not initially clear, glancing quickly through the list informs them right away. No point in drawing unnecessary attention to extra information that is not main content. The other tabs also have lists in chronological or reverse chronological order. But there's nothing there to explain in which direction.

### Existing
<img src="/uploads/d5592533c60186a7a53af5d6d010fa56/Screen_Shot_2016-12-09_at_12.38.25_AM.png" height="200px" />

### After change
<img src="/uploads/facc800496d27f1ee33e0d48d339b2f3/Screen_Shot_2016-12-09_at_12.37.36_AM.png" height="200px" />

See merge request !8004

Fixed GFM autocomplete to disallow non-word characters in string

## What does this MR do?

Disallows GFM autocomplete working when a non-word character is enter in the middle of the string.

## Screenshots (if relevant)

![Screen_Shot_2016-12-12_at_09.47.46](/uploads/aa6463a57b97c103c69eab6bb1d80540/Screen_Shot_2016-12-12_at_09.47.46.png)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Closes #25540

See merge request !8035

added go back anchor on error pages

## What does this MR do?

adds go back anchor on error pages

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
-

## Why was this MR needed?

requested per https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25534

## Screenshots (if relevant)

![image](/uploads/894c513e7a058deb0124b5152dc11e28/image.png)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
  - [ ] Added for this feature/bug
  - [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Closes #25534

See merge request !8087

Add Object.assign polyfill

Because PhantomJS

See merge request !8090

Move admin active tab spinach tests to RSpec

See merge request !8037

Use build instead create in group spec

See merge request !8068

In a high availability configuration, the Redis and PostgreSQL nodes
should not attempt to run database migrations. In fact, trying will
result in errors about not providing a database password. To
prevent errors and confusion, add this configurtion to these nodes'
`gitlab.rb` file.

Fixed file template dropdown for the "New File" editor for smaller/zoomed screens

## What does this MR do?

Fixes the dropdown issue on zoomed/smaller screens

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

Until what point do we consider not supporting a certain screen size / zoom level

## Why was this MR needed?

To fix the dropdown position when zooming in on the screen

## Screenshots (if relevant)

Zoom levels

**100% Zoom**
![100_](/uploads/b13c6c48d4ca99b119d45975280cd16f/100_.png)

**175% Zoom**
![175_](/uploads/ef25dffbf85d0859bc57c875914ffc7a/175_.png)

**200% Zoom**
![200_](/uploads/6ff7709f42304d51ef29a173efa5540d/200_.png)

**300% Zoom**
![300_](/uploads/7e57528582a09355354bbbfc26aa64a4/300_.png)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [X] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
  - [ ] Added for this feature/bug
  - [X] All builds are passing
- [X] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [X] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [X] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [X] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Closes #23962 

## Affected pages for the modified css-classes

`./app/assets/stylesheets/pages/editor.scss:  .gitignore-selector,
./app/assets/stylesheets/pages/editor.scss:  .license-selector,
./app/assets/stylesheets/pages/editor.scss:  .gitlab-ci-yml-selector {
./app/views/projects/blob/_editor.html.haml:      .gitlab-ci-yml-selector.js-gitlab-ci-yml-selector-wrap.hidden
./app/assets/stylesheets/pages/editor.scss:  .new-file-name {
./app/views/projects/blob/_editor.html.haml:        required: true, class: 'form-control new-file-name' `

See merge request !7807

Add a slug to environments

## What does this MR do?

Adds a `slug` field to the `environments` table, populating existing rows and ensuring that new rows will get an entry.

Cleaning examples:

* `review/foo`  => `review-foo-5gghdf`
* `review-foo` => `review-foo`
* `1-foo` => `env-1-foo-e2hx12`
* `production` => `production`
* `Production` => `production-f8ddlz`

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

This migration requires downtime. I don't see a way to avoid it.

## Why was this MR needed?

External services often have more restrictive rules on naming than those enforced for `environments.name`. In particular, forward slashes and names longer than 24 characters causes problems on OpenShift. `slug` is designed to be an acceptable alternative to `name` in these situations. Since forward slashes are a documented part of environment names, to set environment types, we need an envionmnent slug, not just a slug for the branch name.

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added
- [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [X] API support added
- Tests
  - [X] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [X] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [X] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [X] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if it does - rebase it please)
- [X] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Part of #22864

See merge request !7983

Filter `incoming_email_token` and `runners_token` parameters

Closes https://dev.gitlab.org/gitlab/gitlabhq/issues/2676

See merge request !2045

Issue#visible_to_user moved to IssuesFinder

Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/24637.

See merge request !2039

Fix missing Note access checks in by moving Note#search to updated NoteFinder

Split from !2024 to partially solve https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23867

## Which fixes are in this MR?

⚠ - Potentially untested  
💣 - No test coverage  
🚥 - Test coverage of some sort exists (a test failed when error raised)  
🚦 - Test coverage of return value (a test failed when nil used)  
✅ - Permissions check tested

### Note lookup without access check

- [x] ✅ app/finders/notes_finder.rb:13 :download_code check
- [x] ✅ app/finders/notes_finder.rb:19 `SnippetsFinder`
- [x] ✅ app/models/note.rb:121 [`Issue#visible_to_user`]
- [x] ✅ lib/gitlab/project_search_results.rb:113
  - This is the only use of `app/models/note.rb:121` above, but importantly has no access checks at all. This means it leaks MR comments and snippets when those features are `team-only` in addition to the issue comments which would be fixed by `app/models/note.rb:121`.
  - It is only called from SearchController where `can?(current_user, :download_code, @project)` is checked, so commit comments are not leaked.

### Previous discussions
- [x] https://dev.gitlab.org/gitlab/gitlabhq/merge_requests/2024/diffs#b915c5267a63628b0bafd23d37792ae73ceae272_13_13 `: download_code` check on commit
- [x] https://dev.gitlab.org/gitlab/gitlabhq/merge_requests/2024/diffs#b915c5267a63628b0bafd23d37792ae73ceae272_19_19 `SnippetsFinder` should be used
  - `SnippetsFinder` should check if the snippets feature is enabled -> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25223

###  Acceptance criteria met?
- [x] Tests added for new code
- [x] TODO comments removed
- [x] Squashed and removed skipped tests
- [x] Changelog entry
- [ ] State Gitlab versions affected and issue severity in description
- [ ] Create technical debt issue for NotesFinder.
  - Either split into `NotesFinder::ForTarget` and `NotesFinder::Search` or consider object per notable type such as `NotesFinder::OnIssue`. For the first option could create `NotesFinder::Base` which is either inherited from or which can be included in the other two.
  - Avoid case statement anti-pattern in this finder with use of `NotesFinder::OnCommit` etc. Consider something on the finder for this? `Model.finder(user, project)`
  - Move `inc_author` to the controller, and implement `related_notes` to replace `non_diff_notes`/`mr_and_commit_notes`

See merge request !2035