`Option[T]` currently exposes a method `Value()` which is permitted to be called on an option that has a value, and an option that doesn't have a value. This API is awkward because the behaviour if the option doesn't have a value isn't clear to the caller, and, because almost all accesses end up being `.Has()?` then `OK, use .Value()`.
`Get() (bool, T)` is added as a better replacement, which both returns whether the option has a value, and the value if present. Most call-sites are rewritten to this form.
`ValueOrZeroValue()` is a direct replacement that has the same behaviour that `Value()` had, but describes the behaviour if the value is missing.
In addition to the current API being awkward, the core reason for this change is that `Value()` conflicts with the `Value()` function from the `driver.Valuer` interface. If this interface was implemented, it would allow `Option[T]` to be used to represent a nullable field in an xorm bean struct (requires: https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/66).
_Note:_ changes are extensive in this PR, but are almost all changes are easy, mechanical transitions from `.Has()` to `.Get()`. All of this work was performed by hand.
## 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.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### 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.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11218
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
The Issue and PullRequest list has 3 states:
- open: This lists all open Issues/PullRequests
- closed: This lists all closed Issues/PullRequests
- all: This lists all open and closed Issues/PullRequests
If you want to get to the all state, you need to click Open while in open state or Closed while in closed state, which is very unintuitive. This PR adss a third button to get to this state.
I'm not sure if the eye icon fits well, but I couldn't find a better one.
Tests will be added once #4124 is merged.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4125
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: JakobDev <jakobdev@gmx.de>
Co-committed-by: JakobDev <jakobdev@gmx.de>
This PR uses `db.ListOptions` instead of `Paginor` to make the code
simpler.
And it also fixed the performance problem when viewing /pulls or
/issues. Before the counting in fact will also do the search.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
(cherry picked from commit 3f26fe2fa2c7141c9e622297e50a70f3e0003e4d)
Since the issue indexer has been refactored, the issue overview webpage
is built by the `buildIssueOverview` function and underlying
`indexer.Search` function and `GetIssueStats` instead of
`GetUserIssueStats`. So the function is no longer used.
I moved the relevant tests to `indexer_test.go` and since the search
option changed from `IssueOptions` to `SearchOptions`, most of the tests
are useless now.
We need more tests about the db indexer because those tests are highly
connected with the issue overview webpage and now this page has several
bugs.
Any advice about those test cases is appreciated.
---------
Co-authored-by: CaiCandong <50507092+CaiCandong@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR
- [x] Move some functions from `issues.go` to `issue_stats.go` and
`issue_label.go`
- [x] Remove duplicated issue options `UserIssueStatsOption` to keep
only one `IssuesOptions`
