Improve JIRA issue closing
- Zendesk ticket: https://gitlab.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/11034
### Expected behavior
When a merge request has 'Fixes JIRA-1234' in the description the issue should not only be transitioned but also record a comment (regardless of workflow type in JIRA).
### Observed behavior
Depending on the configured workflow a comment may or may not be allowed while transitioning to a new state. In my testing the newest JIRA default workflow did not allow comments while transitioning to 'Done', for example. The 'classic' workflow does, though.
This merge request splits the transition and comment in to two API calls. The advantage is that the comment will be recorded 100% of the time instead of it being dependent on the workflow configuration.
Also, JIRA returns a '204' response code when the transition is successful. I added '204' to the success conditional because we were generating an error in the current configuration even though the transition was successful.
See merge request !45
Fix error preventing displaying of commit data for a directory with a leading dot
Directories with leading dots erroneously get rejected by the route controller if git
ref regex is used in constraints. This prevents commit data from being loaded. The regex verification is now done in controller.
Closes https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/8763
See merge request !1574
Refactor Ci::Commit and Ci::Build to have all builds for same :sha on single page
This makes Ci::Commit to have only :sha and simplifies routing to have only :sha in path. The :ref and :push_data is now parameter of Ci::Build.
All commit related data (git author, message and .gitlab-ci.yml) is read directly from repository.
All code related for creating builds is moved to CreateBuildsService.
Status deduction is rewritten to make if more efficient and easier to integrate with Commit Status API.
This is partially working, tests are not yet touched.
This slightly changes view of Commit:
@dzaporozhets What do you think?
See merge request !1502
This class method can be used in "describe" blocks to specify the
subject of a benchmark. This lets you write:
benchmark_subject { Foo }
instead of:
benchmark_subject { -> { Foo } }
This benchmark suite uses benchmark-ips
(https://github.com/evanphx/benchmark-ips) behind the scenes. Specs can
be turned into benchmark specs by setting "benchmark" to "true" in the
top-level describe block like so:
describe SomeClass, benchmark: true do
end
Writing benchmarks can be done using custom RSpec matchers, for example:
describe MaruTheCat, benchmark: true do
describe '#jump_in_box' do
it 'should run 1000 iterations per second' do
maru = described_class.new
expect { maru.jump_in_box }.to iterate_per_second(1000)
end
end
end
By default the "iterate_per_second" expectation requires a standard
deviation under 30% (this is just an arbitrary default for now). You can
change this by chaining "with_maximum_stddev" on the expectation:
expect { maru.jump_in_box }.to iterate_per_second(1000)
.with_maximum_stddev(10)
This will change the expectation to require a maximum deviation of 10%.
Alternatively you can use the it block style to write specs:
describe MaruTheCat, benchmark: true do
describe '#jump_in_box' do
subject { -> { described_class.new } }
it { is_expected.to iterate_per_second(1000) }
end
end
Because "iterate_per_second" operates on a block, opposed to a static
value, the "subject" method must return a Proc. This looks a bit goofy
but I have been unable to find a nice way around this.
If this directory were to be empty this would result in warnings being
printed to STDERR, cluttering spec output. Doing this in Ruby fixes this
problem (and also removes the need for shell alltogether).
Robert Speicher
Drew Blessing
Valery Sizov
Robert Speicher
Alex Lossent
Douwe Maan
Valery Sizov
Dmitriy Zaporozhets
Stan Hu
Kamil Trzciński
Yorick Peterse
Kirilll Zaitsev
