- I made a mistake when specifying the `FOR` clause for the index hint,
I read it as being an required argument by XORM. The [MariaDB
documention](https://mariadb.com/kb/en/use-index/) tells that it
defaults to the `FOR JOIN` clause hence why I specified `JOIN` (As can
be seen in the previous PR's SQL analyze I didn't specify the `FOR`
clause). However apparently there seems to be some wizardy going on as
we need to tell MariaDB to use this index for the `ORDER BY` clause to
actually force MariaDB to use this index over the `updated_unix` index.
However because it's not actually required by XORM to specify this
value I leave this empty as mariadb is apparently smart enough to figure
out for which type we want to use this index.
- TL;DR make this index hint actually effective for MariaDB.
- Ref: #6146
This is a clean revert of the commits that led to grouping all jobs related to issue labeling into one workflow. The assumption that it would be more efficient was incorrect because it assumed the conditions for running each job would be evaluated statically Forgejo side. In reality the conditions are evaluated by the runner and multiplies the number of runs required instead of decreasing them. In turn, this clutters the status line of each pull request with numerous skipped runs. Finally it is more complex to maintain multiple jobs into a single workflow because the conditions for it to run have to be duplicated.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6178
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
### Problem
Big instances can have huge authorized_keys files when using OpenSSH instead of the internal ssh server. Forgejo always re-generates the contents of that file when a user is deleted, even if he does not even have a public key uploaded. In case of codeberg.org, a 15MB file gets rewritten. If we batch delete 100 Spam users without ssh keys, we rewrite 1.5GB, this takes time and wears the SSD. In addition, there is a high chance of hitting a race contidion bug, when deleting users in parallel.
### Solution / Mitigation
This patch prevents rewriting authorized_keys files, when not necessary. It greatly speeds up deleting malicious users, saves IO bandwidth and SSD wear. It also greatly reduces the chance of hitting a race condition bug. Fixing the race condition is not the scope of this patch though.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6097
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Shimokawa <shimokawa@fsfe.org>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Shimokawa <shimokawa@fsfe.org>
In the combination of events where the user is viewing an action that is completed (and therefore no interval-based loading of logs is occurring), and `loadJob` is called while `loadJob` is already running (commonly from expanding two log sections back-to-back), the second request for loading would be discarded and never occur.
To fix this, the invocation of `loadJob` keeps track of the log cursors it is attempting to load, and an aborted invocation stores its attempted load. If `loadJob` succeeds in loading and finds that an attempt was aborted while it was busy, it will reload the data.
Steps to reproduce:
- Open an Action UI that is already "Done".
- Click on two steps in rapid succession to expand their logs.
- (Race condition) As long as the second click is registered while the first log chunk is being loaded, its data won't load.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes... (**not applicable**)
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [x] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6122
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- A softbreak was being preserved during the github legacy callout (this
is likely due to a change in Goldmark) while it should not. This caused
an `<br>` to be present between the attention title and attention content.
- Added unit test.
