Backport #27227 by @denyskon
Throughout the Gitea codebase, you can meet some weird constructions to
make `locale.Tr` work in subtemplates.
Since we now have `ctx.Locale.Tr` which solves that problem, clean up
various templates which pass `locale` through `dict` or use some weird
constructions like `$.root.locale`
Going on, it would be great to replace every case of `$.locale.Tr` and
`.locale.Tr` with `ctx.Locale.Tr`, but that needs to be done with
patience.
Co-authored-by: Denys Konovalov <kontakt@denyskon.de>
1. Use `gt-invisible` instead of `invisible`.
2. Use `gt-word-break` instead of `dont-break-out` (there is a slight
different "hyphens", but I think it won't affect too much since it is
only used for the "full name").
3. Remove `.small.button:has(svg)` , now our buttons could layout SVG
correctly, and actually I didn't see this CSS class is used in code.
Each change is tested manually line by line. There are too many changes
so I can't share dozens of screenshots.
In short:
1. `ui right` could be still used in `ui top attached header`, because
there is a special case.
2. A lot of `ui right` are just no-op, so they can be removed safely.
3. Some of the `ui right` should be replaced by `gt-float-right` (to
avoid breaking, leave them to the future).
4. A few of the `ui right` could be rewritten by flex.
1. Use `is-loading` instead of `ui loader`
2. Introduce class name `image-diff-tabs`, instead of searching `gt-hidden`, which is fragile
3. Align the UI elements, see the screenshots.
Previously, the tooltip for this button was only shown after opening and
closing it once because it was only set after the server response, now
it shows before opening it.
Resizing the comment editor can be a very expensive operation because it
triggers page reflows, which on large PRs can take upwards of seconds to
complete. Disable this mechanism on the diff page only where we know
that the page can get large.
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/26201 for the textarea
editor.
I don't think this can be fixed for EasyMDE because as far as I can
tell, it exposes no option to disable this resizing.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Use a real button and add an aria-label.
Additionally, show the button whenever it is focused.
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/998 for explanation.
Our handling of this button is now equal to that of GitHub.
Nothing has changed visually.
the PullHeadCommitID is not always available when the PR is merged.
Not sure if this is the best solution but in my simple tests it looks
like this fixes the problem - happy to get any feedback.
hopefully fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/24813
So I found this [linter](https://github.com/Riverside-Healthcare/djlint)
which features a mode for go templates, so I gave it a try and it did
find a number of valid issue, like unbalanced tags etc. It also has a
number of bugs, I had to disable/workaround many issues.
Given that this linter is written in python, this does add a dependency
on `python` >= 3.8 and `poetry` to the development environment to be
able to run this linter locally.
- `e.g.` prefixes on placeholders are removed because the linter had a
false-positive on `placeholder="e.g. cn=Search"` for the `attr=value`
syntax and it's not ideal anyways to write `e.g.` into a placeholder
because a placeholder is meant to hold a sample value.
- In `templates/repo/settings/options.tmpl` I simplified the logic to
not conditionally create opening tags without closing tags because this
stuff confuses the linter (and possibly the reader as well).
Feel free to close this if there isn't interest.
The tree view looks amazing, and all of our users are really enjoying it
(major kudos to developers!), but only IF I tell them it exists!
Essentially, the file tree view as it is effectively undiscoverable.
This PR changes the default state for the tree view to open, which
should significantly help with discoverability.
An alternative could be to reserve more horizontal space, as a typical
accordion panel would look (eg. VS Code), eg.
There was some recent discussion about this in Discord `ui-design`
channel and the conclusion was that
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/24305 should have fixed their
OS font installation to have semibold weights.
I have now tested this 601 weight on a Windows 10 machine on Firefox
myself, and I immediately noticed that bold was excessivly bold and
rendering as 700 because browsers are biased towards bolder fonts. So
revert this back to the previous value.
Visually, nothing should have changed.
Changes include
- Convert most `<a [no href]>` to `<button>` when (re-)viewing files:
- `<a [no href]>` are, by HTML definition, not a link and hence cannot
be focused
- `<a class="ui button">` can now be clicked (again?) using
<kbd>Enter</kbd>
- Previously, the installed keypress handler on `.ui.button` elements
disabled it for links somehow
- The `(un)escape file`, the `expand section` and the `expand/collapse
file` buttons can now be focused (and subsequently clicked using only
the keyboard)
- You can now press <kbd>Space</kbd> on a focused `View file` checkbox
to mark the file as viewed.
- previously, this was impossible as this checkbox listened on the wrong
event listener
The `add code comment` button has been left inaccessible for now as it
requires quite a bit of extra logic so that it is unhidden when it is
focused (you can otherwise focus it without seeing it as you are not
hovering on the corresponding line).
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
I am not sure what "new-menu" means, but I think we need to fix these
problems:
1. it shouldn't have "stackable", which makes the items stacked when
width is small. the `new-menu` already has `overflow: auto`
2. `justify-content: center` doesn't work with `overflow: auto` (for
small width), so use `margin: auto`
*
https://bhch.github.io/posts/2021/04/centring-flex-items-and-allowing-overflow-scroll/
3. `runner-new-menu` is dead code (copying & pasting ?)
Close#24195
Some of the changes are taken from my another fix
f07b0de997
in #20147 (although that PR was discarded ....)
The bug is:
1. The old code doesn't handle `removedfile` event correctly
2. The old code doesn't provide attachments for type=CommentTypeReview
This PR doesn't intend to refactor the "upload" code to a perfect state
(to avoid making the review difficult), so some legacy styles are kept.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
One of the steps in #23328
Before there were 3 different but similar functions: dict/Dict/mergeinto
The code was just copied & pasted, no test.
This PR defines a new stable `dict` function, it covers all the 3 old
functions behaviors, only +160 -171
Future developers do not need to think about or guess the different dict
functions, just use one: `dict`
Why use `dict` but not `Dict`? Because there are far more `dict` than
`Dict` in code already ......
One of the proposals in #23328
This PR introduces a simple expression calculator
(templates/eval/eval.go), it can do basic expression calculations.
Many untested template helper functions like `Mul` `Add` can be replaced
by this new approach.
Then these `Add` / `Mul` / `percentage` / `Subtract` / `DiffStatsWidth`
could all use this `Eval`.
And it provides enhancements for Golang templates, and improves
readability.
Some examples:
----
* Before: `{{Add (Mul $glyph.Row 12) 12}}`
* After: `{{Eval $glyph.Row "*" 12 "+" 12}}`
----
* Before: `{{if lt (Add $i 1) (len $.Topics)}}`
* After: `{{if Eval $i "+" 1 "<" (len $.Topics)}}`
## FAQ
### Why not use an existing expression package?
We need a highly customized expression engine:
* do the calculation on the fly, without pre-compiling
* deal with int/int64/float64 types, to make the result could be used in
Golang template.
* make the syntax could be used in the Golang template directly
* do not introduce too much complex or strange syntax, we just need a
simple calculator.
* it needs to strictly follow Golang template's behavior, for example,
Golang template treats all non-zero values as truth, but many 3rd
packages don't do so.
### What's the benefit?
* Developers don't need to add more `Add`/`Mul`/`Sub`-like functions,
they were getting more and more.
Now, only one `Eval` is enough for all cases.
* The new code reads better than old `{{Add (Mul $glyph.Row 12) 12}}`,
the old one isn't familiar to most procedural programming developers
(eg, the Golang expression syntax).
* The `Eval` is fully covered by tests, many old `Add`/`Mul`-like
functions were never tested.
### The performance?
It doesn't use `reflect`, it doesn't need to parse or compile when used
in Golang template, the performance is as fast as native Go template.
### Is it too complex? Could it be unstable?
The expression calculator program is a common homework for computer
science students, and it's widely used as a teaching and practicing
purpose for developers. The algorithm is pretty well-known.
The behavior can be clearly defined, it is stable.
