`DefaultMaxInSize` is an internal parameter for limiting the size of `field IN (...)` clauses in DB queries, which is a reasonable thing to do -- in addition to the errors noted when [originally introduced](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/4594), there are technical limits that apply to each of PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQLite which would prevent an unbounded size for a query like this. However: the size is incredibly small at 50, and, the implementation of `DefaultMaxInSize` is really wasteful with copy-and-paste coding.
This PR:
- introduces `GetByIDs` which fetches a `map[int64]*Model` from the database for an array of ID values, while respecting `IN` clause size limits
- introduces `GetByFieldIn` which fetches a `map[int64][]*Model` from the database for an array of field values, while respecting `IN` clause size limits
- uses `slices.Chunk` for other locations where queries are too complex for these implementations
- bumps the `DefaultMaxInSize` parameter from 50 to 500, a conservative increase well under known limits, but 10x the current value:
- PostgreSQL supports up to 1GB query text size with 65,535 parameters, but I've experienced performance degradation at high value counts
- MySQL supports 64MB query text size without known limits of parameter count
- SQLite supports 32,766 parameters in a query
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- Refactored functions are assumed to be covered by existing tests to some extent; that assumption is probably wrong but the changes here are relatively easily reviewed for correctness as well.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11999
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Optimize loading pull request review comments, which currently perform separate database queries for each comment in order to load the resolver of the comment, and the reactions on that comment, and the users on each reaction of the comments.
I stumbled across this ugly code, which enticed me to look into this:
80d840c128/routers/web/repo/pull.go (L1107-L1120)
It appeared to load the attachments from each comment on the pull request review page in separate database queries. It turned out to be a noop, as the attachments are already loaded in bulk:
80d840c128/models/issues/comment_code.go (L120-L122)
but the `findCodeComments` method loads the "resolver doer" and the reactions one-by-one for each comment. So I fixed that instead, and removed the ineffective deeply nested for loop.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 for Go changes
- 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 ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11988
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#10155
When participants are displayed, don't include those that only have made a pending review. Those should not yet be revealed as participants.
Apart from adding automated tests, this is the manual verification process I've followed:
1. Set up three users
2. User 1 creates a repository, then creates a pull request adding a new file
3. User 2 creates a new code comment but doesn't not publish the review, shows as pending.
4. User 3 creates a new code comment and publishes the review.
5. From everyone's perspective the number of participants is: 2. And, the participants displayed in the list are 1 and 3. User 2, which hasn't yet published the review is not displayed.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10528
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: luisadame <luisadame@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: luisadame <luisadame@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes#8329
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
### Documentation
- [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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8330
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: floss4good <floss4good@disroot.org>
Co-committed-by: floss4good <floss4good@disroot.org>
Previously, all posters were updated, even if they were not part of
posterMaps. In that case, a ghost user was erroneously inserted.
Fixes#31213.
(cherry picked from commit 3cc7f763c3c22ae4c3b5331f8b72b7009c5b11ea)
Many places have the following logic:
```go
func (jobs ActionJobList) GetRunIDs() []int64 {
ids := make(container.Set[int64], len(jobs))
for _, j := range jobs {
if j.RunID == 0 {
continue
}
ids.Add(j.RunID)
}
return ids.Values()
}
```
this introduces a `container.FilterMapUnique` function, which reduces
the code above to:
```go
func (jobs ActionJobList) GetRunIDs() []int64 {
return container.FilterMapUnique(jobs, func(j *ActionRunJob) (int64, bool) {
return j.RunID, j.RunID != 0
})
}
```
Conflicts:
models/issues/comment_list.go due to premature refactor in #3116
This PR do some performance optimzations.
- [x] Add `index` for the column `comment_id` of `Attachment` table to
accelerate query from the database.
- [x] Remove unnecessary database queries when viewing issues. Before
some conditions which id = 0 will be sent to the database
- [x] Remove duplicated load posters
- [x] Batch loading attachements, isread of comments on viewing issue
---------
Co-authored-by: Zettat123 <zettat123@gmail.com>
Conflicts:
models/issues/comment_code.go: function was renamed in Forgejo
models/migrations/migrations.go: migration already ported
RequestReview get deleted on review.
So we don't have to try to load them on comments.
broken out #28544
(cherry picked from commit 6fad2c874438275d3f69bb1cc223708bd2d27ff6)
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
If a comment dismisses a review, we need to load the reviewer to show
whose review has been dismissed.
Related to:
20b6ae0e53/templates/repo/issue/view_content/comments.tmpl (L765-L770)
We don't need `.Review.Reviewer` for all comments, because
"dismissing" doesn't happen often, or we would have already received
error reports.
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* Move access and repo permission to models/perm/access
* fix test
* fix git test
* Move functions sequence
* Some improvements per @KN4CK3R and @delvh
* Move issues related code to models/issues
* Move some issues related sub package
* Merge
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Rename some files
2022-06-13 17:37:59 +08:00
Renamed from models/issue_comment_list.go (Browse further)
