RhodeCode - issues: Issueshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/https://issues.rhodecode.com/favicon.ico?16960560042017-05-30T16:11:23ZRhodeCode - issues
Redmine RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #5326 (Resolved): Public usergroup profilehttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/53262017-05-30T16:11:23ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Somehow similar to user profile e.g <a href="https://code.rhodecode.com/_profiles/marcink" class="external">https://code.rhodecode.com/_profiles/marcink</a> but for usergroups.</p>
<ul>
<li>expose a view that shows an usergroup with members, really simple</li>
<li>the view checks usergroup permissions(view at least read required)</li>
<li>we need similar helper as for users which will expose a link to the usergroup profile</li>
</ul>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4251 (Feedback): [customer] Pull request with subreposhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/42512016-09-29T13:41:00ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>While a lot of time passed since we’ve exchanged emails last time, let me share some details about the way we work at R and what kind of Rhodecode improvements would be useful for us. </p>
<ul>
<li>Most of our iOS/Mac product repositories are Mercurial </li>
<li>We extensively use Mercurial’s subrepositories for internal dependencies: our internal libraries are Mercurial or git repositories, which are added to product repository as a subrepo. </li>
<li>I like github flow: creating feature branches (bookmarks in Mercurial), opening pull request to master (default), code-reviewing this pull request and merging it after review is finished</li>
</ul>
<p>Unfortunately Rhodecode does not allow to create pull request for Mercurial repository in case it contains any subrepo, even if there were no changes in that sub-repositories. </p>
<p>So that’s the main reason why we can’t use github flow with Rhodecode and that’s the reason why we have to Crucible. </p>
<p>I’ve shared these details with team about a year ago : <a href="https://rhodecode.tenderapp.com/help/discussions/support-tickets/1234-unable-to-create-pull-request" class="external">https://rhodecode.tenderapp.com/help/discussions/support-tickets/1234-unable-to-create-pull-request</a></p>
<p>Currently Rhodecode is more like a repository storage for us and while post-commit reviews are possible they are rarely used. That’s why most people at R almost never see Rhodecode web interface. </p>
<p>Let me know if you need any more details or have any workaround that would still allow us to use pull requests. </p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Feature #4225 (Resolved): [ce, ee] repo group integrations cascade to child rep...https://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/42252016-09-13T12:35:11ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>At the moment repo group scope integrations apply only to the direct child repositories which means <code>scope:/u</code> does:</p>
<pre><code>/u
/somerepo - applies
/group
/otherrepo - doesn't apply
</code></pre>
<p>Should we add option to let the user allow the integration to cascade to child groups, the choices for the above example would then be:</p>
<ul>
<li>/u/ (any repo)</li>
<li>/u/ (direct child repos only)</li>
<li>/u/somerepo</li>
<li>/group/ (any repo)</li>
<li>/group/ (direct child repos only)</li>
<li>/gorup/otherrepo</li>
</ul>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Bug #4223 (Resolved): [git, tags] annotated tags not appearing in UIhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/42232016-09-09T11:51:31ZLisa Quatmannlisa@rhodecode.com
<p>When I have an annotated tag in a git repo, and I push this tag, I do not see it listed in the changelog, the repo summary, the repo tag summary, or the commit detail page.</p>
<p>As reported in the community slack: <a href="https://rhodecode-community.slack.com/archives/general/p1473412004000013" class="external">https://rhodecode-community.slack.com/archives/general/p1473412004000013</a></p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4202 (Resolved): Polish the 503.html pagehttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/42022016-08-29T16:56:27ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>We have a custom page for NGINX if RhodeCode is down, under: <a href="https://internal-code.rhodecode.com/rhodecode-enterprise-ce/files/default/rhodecode/public/502.html" class="external">https://internal-code.rhodecode.com/rhodecode-enterprise-ce/files/default/rhodecode/public/502.html</a></p>
<p>It is shown via such NGINX entry:</p>
<pre><code> ## custom 502 error page
error_page 502 /502.html;
location = /502.html {
root /path/to/.rccontrol/enterprise-1/static;
}
</code></pre>
<p>It looks very ugly, we should make it look nice and have some more usefull information.</p>
<p>We CANNOT use any variables, images etc. It needs to be PURE html (similar to email templates) but without variables.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Feature #4183 (Resolved): Different roles for PR reviewershttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/41832016-08-18T17:56:14ZTomoyuki Harada
<p>Currently we can set one or more reviewers for PR, but to complete review all reviewers must approve it.<br>
This workflow is natural but sometimes we just want someone check modification as observer but not need to mandatory to complete the review.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4181 (Resolved): Integrations: allow root repos only integrationshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/41812016-08-18T16:09:31ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>I realized that repo groups already allow to have really good control over integrations. I think last missing bit would be a flag that sets the global integrations to work for root level projects only. This would allow to create global catch all for all root level projects, + possible combinations of integrations on repo group level.</p>
<p>THen i could:</p>
<ul>
<li>set global slack integration for all our root projects which are the main ones</li>
<li>set slack integration for <code>u</code> usergroup which is our namespace for forks</li>
<li>skip <code>release</code> group which produces a lot of noise</li>
<li>add any other repo group that we have if we need to.</li>
</ul>
<p>THoughts ?</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #4180 (Resolved): integrations: possible limit the updates senthttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/41802016-08-17T09:42:46ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>based on the amount of comments in this ticket: <a href="https://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/4172" class="external">https://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/4172</a></p>
<p>I wonder, if maybe it's better to aggregate those, and send a list of referenced tickets instead of updating ticket on each commit pushed. In case of large pushes it would almost spam the issue tracker server. After i merged 5-6 commits i got 5-6 emails from redmine.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Feature #4175 (Resolved): [ce, ee] repo group integrationshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/41752016-08-15T12:25:12ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>Add a way for integrations to run on a repo group</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Bug #4173 (Resolved): [ce, ee] mysql recycle pool timeout not workinghttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/41732016-08-12T16:41:27ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>Replication:</p>
<ul>
<li>new config using mysql database</li>
<li>set mysql's wait_timeout to 6</li>
<li><code>threads = 1</code> in ini</li>
<li><code>sqlalchemy.db1.pool_recycle = 3</code> in ini</li>
<li>git push a repo (no changes need, just a push)</li>
<li>wait 7 seconds</li>
<li>git push again</li>
<li>get - <code>OperationalError: (OperationalError) (2006, 'MySQL server has gone away)</code></li>
</ul>
<p>This will also break subsequent requests with <code>StatementError: Can't reconnect until invalid transaction is rolled back</code></p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Bug #4092 (Feedback): [ce, ee] Redmine/JIRA integrations - smart commitshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/40922016-07-15T12:29:44ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>For the redmine case there are 5 states for a ticket:</p>
<ul>
<li>new</li>
<li>in progress</li>
<li>resolved</li>
<li>feedback</li>
<li>closed'</li>
</ul>
<p>Commit messages should be able to auto close/resolve tickets using keywords such as <code>fixes #42</code></p>
<p>The thing to think about is that the user may want 'fixes #20' to set the redmine issue to any of 'resolved', 'feedback' or 'closed' - this should be set in the integration options.</p>
<p>Allowing custom multiple regex => state mappers per integration is the most powerful but might be overkill- making standard keywords might be better eg:</p>
<p>fixes => resolved<br>
closes => closed</p>
<p>Then again this might be no good for international users.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Bug #4091 (Resolved): [ce, ee] Redmine integration blocks for 30 seconds if red...https://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/40912016-07-15T08:59:15ZDaniel Ddaniel@rhodecode.com
<p>This is a problem when not running celery - ie. sync mode, should lower the timeout to something smaller.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Task #3454 (Feedback): [ce/ee] visually differentiate the two editionshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/34542016-04-07T15:38:27ZOliver Strobeloliver@rhodecode.com
<p>Currently we are only changing the footer to include Community vs. Enterprise differentiation.</p>
<p>Purpose: It should be possible to tell the difference in edition quickly when switching between CE/EE tabs.</p>
<p>Potential solutions:<br>
1) Add the edition name into the header after the logo on the top left<br>
2) Change the colour of the header between editions, eg.<br>
CE = dark grey<br>
EE = black</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Feature #2539 (Feedback): Recursive deletion of resourceshttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/25392015-08-25T18:11:48ZMarcin Kuzminski [CTO]marcin@rhodecode.com
<p>Ticket from support: <a href="https://rhodecode.tenderapp.com/help/discussions/problems/7125-rc-225-after-deleting-repo-groups-on-file-system-then-rescan-the-repo-groups-are-always-in-the-db" class="external">https://rhodecode.tenderapp.com/help/discussions/problems/7125-rc-225-after-deleting-repo-groups-on-file-system-then-rescan-the-repo-groups-are-always-in-the-db</a></p>
<p>Use case:</p>
<ul>
<li>gemalto needs to often delete large repository groups, current system doesn't allow doing it from web interface</li>
<li>users need to delete manually each repo inside repo group and then delete the group itself</li>
</ul>
<p>Currently our system supports this operation in cleanup mode, so you can delete whole directory from the filesystem and run remap-and rescan. This is a workaround and should allow<br>
big cleanup, but it's far from being straightforward to do.</p>
<p>We need a consistent interface for deletion of resource that hold other resources. This should currently include two places</p>
<ul>
<li>user deletion (that hold repo groups/user groups/repositories)</li>
<li>repository group deletion (that hold other repositories)</li>
</ul>
<p>You can delete user or repository group in two ways, goind to admin > users or admin > repo groups and clicking delete.<br>
In case there are dependent objects, we should trigger a warning flash message, and redirect user to advanced settings section of user, or repo group. and allow them to do recursive delete.</p>
<p>There's already an interface for that in users advanced section, when you can select if you want to delete or transfer ownership of repositories or groups that user owns. <br>
We should re-use the logic, and make the same option available to deletion of repository groups. The user advanced section also needs some small improvements.</p>
<p>Recursive delete should have two options.</p>
<ul>
<li>delete resources</li>
<li>transfer ownership of resources to a different user in the system</li>
</ul>
<p>Currently part of that is implemented in user > settings > advanced where we have delete or detach option. <br>
Detach option unfortunetly picks the first super admin in the system which leads to<br>
odd results and you cannot control to whom you need to transfer the ownership.</p>
RhodeCode CE/EE - Feature #1131 (Resolved): Implement default reviewers for code reviewhttps://issues.rhodecode.com/issues/11312015-02-17T11:19:07ZAnderson Santosanderson@rhodecode.com
<p>Currently it puts as a reviewer the owner of the repo. I don't know if there's an alternate way, but in case of RCE is Johannes, so every time we create a new PR, he will be selected even though most of the cases it will be some other member who will review it. </p>
<p>I propose we use this behavior only as a fallback and add an option to the repo to select the default reviewers. That way, we could even let the field blank and it will force the user to select a reviewer or something like that. The consequences still must be discussed.</p>