Skip to content
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

[pull] dev from opf:dev #525

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Apr 2, 2025
Merged

[pull] dev from opf:dev #525

merged 20 commits into from
Apr 2, 2025

Conversation

pull[bot]
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Apr 2, 2025

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.1)

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

cbliard and others added 20 commits March 28, 2025 16:56
ActiveSupport deep_merge does not concatenate arrays from different
hashes. Relations were stored as an array.

Switch to a hash to store all relations without any loss.
https://community.openproject.org/wp/62557

Date picker tabs and relations tab are now sharing the same code for
ordering the relations so there should not be any difference about it
now.
Instead of using parameters given to the RelationComponent.
Failing spec is `./modules/meeting/spec/features/structured_meetings/structured_meeting_crud_spec.rb:90`
in job https://github.com/opf/openproject/actions/runs/14190043033/job/39752454726

When reordering agenda items, the order is not updated immediately under
high load. If the action menu is opened before the reordering is
finished, the action menu will close when the items are reordered and
clicking on the item "Agenda item" will fail.

The flaky spec is fixed by waiting for the order to be updated with
`assert_agenda_order!`.
Also:
- Precompute the closest relation in the `RelationGroup` constructor to
  avoid recomputing it every time.
- Move the `closest?` information in the `RelationItem` instance
  directly to remove its computation from the component.html logic.
https://community.openproject.org/wp/62607

The order of the relation groups was not consistent from one work
package to another. It's because the relations are returned in any order
from the database.

Instead of getting relations from database and then grouping them by
type as they come up in the array, get the types in the order we want
and build up the relation groups from there.

There are no differences between rendering a `RelationGroup` of type
child and a `RelationGroup` of type relation anymore. For this to
happen, the "children" type had to be renamed "child", which is in line
with the Relation::TYPE_CHILD constant.
Example usage:
  | subject      | successors                   |
  | predecessor2 | main, predecessor with lag 2 |
  | predecessor  | precedes main                |
  | main         |                              |
Bumps [lefthook](https://github.com/evilmartians/lefthook) from 1.11.5 to 1.11.6.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/evilmartians/lefthook/releases)
- [Changelog](https://github.com/evilmartians/lefthook/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md)
- [Commits](evilmartians/lefthook@v1.11.5...v1.11.6)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: lefthook
  dependency-type: direct:development
  update-type: version-update:semver-patch
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
user_id is already covered by a different index, so there is
no need for this one.

origin_user_id is an index that will never be used, because we do
not query for the origin_user_id ever.
Most notable is that computation of closest relation has been moved to
the ClosestRelation class.

Co-authored-by: Alexander Brandon Coles <a.coles@openproject.com>
…d-children-tabs-do-not-show-the-correct-chronological-order

[62557] date picker successor and children tabs must show the same correct chronological order
…ookbook

Remove some deprecated lookbook previews
…11.6

Bump lefthook from 1.11.5 to 1.11.6
@pull pull bot added the ⤵️ pull label Apr 2, 2025
@pull pull bot merged commit 2357d7c into kp-forks:dev Apr 2, 2025
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants