When a logged in user with no repositories visits their dashboard, it will
display a search box that lists their own repositories.
This is served by the `repo.SearchRepos` handler, which in turn calls
`commitstatus_service.FindReposLastestCommitStatuses()` with an empty
repo list.
That, in turn, will call `git_model.FindBranchesByRepoAndBranchName()`,
with an empty map. With no map, `FindBranchesByRepoAndBranchName()` ends
up querying the entire `branch` table, because no conditions were set
up.
Armed with a gazillion repo & commit shas, we return to
`FindReposLastestCommitStatuses`, and promptly call
`git_model.GetLatestCommitStatusForPairs`, which constructs a monstrous
query with so many placeholders that the database tells us to go
somewhere else, and flips us off. At least on instances the size of
Codeberg. On smaller instances, it will eventually return, and throw
away all the data, and return an empty set, having performed all this
for naught.
We fix this by short-circuiting `FindBranchesByRepoAndBranchName`, and
returning fast if our inputs are empty.
A test case is included.
Fixes#3521.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
The current path of the `$GITEA_APP_INI` configuration file makes the
forgejo application reset every time the container is restarted, unless
a specific volume for this file is created. Consider the following:
* This quirk is not documented
* All configuration data resides in `/var/lib/gitea`
* The custom configuration path defaults to `/var/lib/gitea/custom/conf`
(see `forgejo -h`)
* Containers mounting the volume `-v /foo/bar:/var/lib/gitea` already
have this file available to modify. Another volume shouldn't be
required
* Containers using named volumes can use `docker cp` to modify the file
inside the volume, if desired
For these reasons, it makes more sense to use the default path for
`$GITEA_APP_INI` rather than require users to create a dedicated volume
for the file. Revert it back to its default while maintaining backwards
compatibility (users can update by simply moving the file to the new
path).
I thought there would be conflicts but that they would not be so difficult to manage. Worst idea I had this week. Change to @oliverpool idea instead.
> Instead of documenting the release notes in the issue, why not in the codebase?
>
> For instance in [go](https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/master:doc/README.md) there is a `doc/next` folder where you add `<pr-number>.md` files which document each pr.
>
> Before the release, a script takes all those files to generate the changelog.
>
> Having them as a file tracked by git, makes them easy to review and to programmatically handle.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/155#issuecomment-1787013
Co-authored-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3452
Reviewed-by: Gergely Nagy <algernon@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
