Skip to content

Fix some migration and repo name problems #33986

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 25, 2025
Merged

Conversation

wxiaoguang
Copy link
Contributor

  1. Ignore empty inputs in UnmarshalHandleDoubleEncode
  2. Ignore non-existing stateEvent.User in gitlab migration
  3. Enable release and wiki units when they are selected in migration
  4. Sanitize repo name for migration and new repo

@GiteaBot GiteaBot added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label Mar 23, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added modifies/go Pull requests that update Go code modifies/frontend labels Mar 23, 2025
@wxiaoguang
Copy link
Contributor Author

image

image

@GiteaBot GiteaBot added lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels Mar 23, 2025
test('sanitizeRepoName', () => {
expect(sanitizeRepoName(' a b ')).toEqual('a-b');
expect(sanitizeRepoName('a-b_c.git ')).toEqual('a-b_c');
expect(sanitizeRepoName('/x.git/')).toEqual('-x.git-');
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For cases where the repo name starts or ends with '/', I think it's better to just remove it

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually in my mind we don't need to make it more complex than it should be.

The sanitizeRepoName only needs to make the name overall good, but doesn't need to do too much for end users. For example: there are far more edge cases: \hello\world, @asdf, etc

@GiteaBot GiteaBot added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels Mar 25, 2025
@lunny lunny added the reviewed/wait-merge This pull request is part of the merge queue. It will be merged soon. label Mar 25, 2025
@lunny lunny merged commit 51d86ad into go-gitea:main Mar 25, 2025
26 checks passed
@GiteaBot GiteaBot added this to the 1.24.0 milestone Mar 25, 2025
@GiteaBot GiteaBot removed the reviewed/wait-merge This pull request is part of the merge queue. It will be merged soon. label Mar 25, 2025
@wxiaoguang wxiaoguang deleted the fix-git-mig branch March 25, 2025 03:33
zjjhot added a commit to zjjhot/gitea that referenced this pull request Mar 26, 2025
* giteaofficial/main:
  Enable color output in govulncheck (go-gitea#34012)
  Update Makefile test comments (go-gitea#34013)
  Move duplicated functions (go-gitea#33977)
  Git client will follow 301 but 307 (go-gitea#34005)
  Prepare common tmpl functions in a middleware (go-gitea#33957)
  Update go mod dependencies (go-gitea#33988)
  Fix some migration and repo name problems (go-gitea#33986)
  [skip ci] Updated translations via Crowdin
  Use filepath.Join instead of path.Join for file system file operations (go-gitea#33978)
  Add changelog for 1.23.6 (go-gitea#33975)
  Fix incorrect code search indexer options (go-gitea#33992)
  Auto expand "New PR" form (go-gitea#33971)
  Move ParseBool to optional (go-gitea#33979)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. modifies/frontend modifies/go Pull requests that update Go code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants