Status reactions had an API similar to that of
announcement reactions, using PUT and DELETE at a
single endpoint. I believe that for statuses, it
makes more sense to follow the convention of the
other interactions and use separate POST endpoints
for create and destroy respectively.
Turns out the strange error where it would delete
the wrong reaction occurred because I forgot to
pass the emoji name to the query, which resulted
in the database deleting the first reaction it
found. Also, this removes the unused set_reaction
callback and includes the Authorization module for
the status reactions controller.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream added a link to the roadmap, but we have a completely different README.
Kept ours.
- `app/models/media_attachment.rb`:
Upstream upped media attachment limits.
Updated the default according to upstream's.
- `db/migrate/20180831171112_create_bookmarks.rb`:
Upstream changed the migration compatibility level.
Did so too.
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream refactored this file but we have a different version.
Kept our version.
- `app/controllers/settings/preferences_controller.rb`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
The file does not directly references individual settings anymore.
Applied upstream changes.
- `app/lib/user_settings_decorator.rb`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
The file got removed entirely.
Removed it as well.
- `app/models/user.rb`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
References to individual settings have been removed from the file.
Removed them as well.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/appearance/show.html.haml`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
Applied upstream's changes and ported ours back.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/notifications/show.html.haml`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
Applied upstream's changes and ported ours back.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/other/show.html.haml`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
Applied upstream's changes and ported ours back.
- `config/settings.yml`:
Upstream completely refactored user settings storage, and glitch-soc has a
different set of settings.
In particular, upstream removed user-specific and unused settings.
Did the same in glitch-soc.
- `spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb`:
Conflicts due to glitch-soc's theming system.
Mostly kept our version, as upstream messed up the tests.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream changed their README, we have our own.
Kept ours.
- `app/helpers/application_helper.rb`:
Minor code style fix upstream, on a line that is different in glitch-soc
due to the different theming system.
Applied the code style fix to our own code.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/appearance/show.html.haml`:
Code style fix on a line next to lines exclusive to glitch-soc.
Applied upstream changes.
- `yarn.lock`:
Upstream updated a dependency textually close to a glitch-soc-only
dependency.
Updated the dependency like upstream did.
Conflicts:
- `.prettierignore`:
Upstream added a line at the end of the file, while glitch-soc had its own
extra lines.
Took upstream's change.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`:
We have our custom CONTRIBUTING.md quoting upstream. Upstream made changes.
Ported upstream changes.
- `app/controllers/application_controller.rb`:
Upstream made code style changes in a method that is entirely replaced
in glitch-soc.
Ignored the change.
- `app/models/account.rb`:
Code style changes textually close to glitch-soc-specific changes.
Ported upstream changes.
- `lib/sanitize_ext/sanitize_config.rb`:
Upstream code style changes.
Ignored them.
Conflicts:
- `.github/dependabot.yml`:
Upstream made changes while we have dropped this file.
Keep the file deleted.
- `.prettierignore`:
Upstream made changes at the end of the file, where we
had our extra lines.
Just moved our extra lines back at the end.
- `app/serializers/initial_state_serializer.rb`:
Upstream code style changes.
Applied them.
- `app/services/backup_service.rb`:
Upstream code style changes.
Applied them.
Conflicts:
- `.prettierignore`:
Upstream added a line at the end, glitch-soc had extra entries at the end.
Added upstream's new line before glitch-soc's.
- `Gemfile.lock`:
Upstream updated dependencies while glitch-soc has an extra one (hcaptcha).
Updated dependencies like upstream did.
- `app/controllers/api/v1/statuses_controller.rb`:
Not a real conflict, upstream added a parameter (`allowed_mentions`) where
glitch-soc already had an extra one (`content_type`).
Added upstream's new parameter.
- `app/javascript/styles/fonts/roboto-mono.scss`:
A lot of lines were changed upstream due to code style changes, and a lot
of those lines had path changes to accomodate glitch-soc's theming system.
Applied upstream's style changes.
- `app/javascript/styles/fonts/roboto.scss`:
A lot of lines were changed upstream due to code style changes, and a lot
of those lines had path changes to accomodate glitch-soc's theming system.
Applied upstream's style changes.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Minor upstream change, our README is completely different.
Kept ours.
- `lib/tasks/assets.rake`:
glitch-soc has extra code to deal with its theming system,
upstream changed a line that exists in glitch-soc.
Applied upstream changes.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-image.yml`:
Upstream updated `docker/build-push-action`, and we a different config
for `docker/metadata-action` so the lines directly above were different,
but it's not a real conflict.
Upgraded `docker/build-push-action` as upstream did.
- `app/javascript/mastodon/features/compose/components/compose_form.js`:
Upstream changed the codestyle near a line we had modified to accommodate
configurable character count.
Kept our change.
Conflicts:
- `config/i18n-tasks.yml`:
Upstream added new ignored strings, glitch-soc has extra ignored strings
because of the theming system.
Added upstream's changes.
* Fix /api/v1/admin/trends/tags using wrong serializer
Fix regression from #18641
* Only use `REST::Admin::TagSerializer` when the user can `manage_taxonomies`
* Fix admin trending hashtag component to not link if `id` is unknown
* Allow changing hide_collections setting with the api
This is currently only possible with app/controllers/settings/profiles_controller.rb
and is the only difference in the allowed parameter between the two controllers
* Fix the lint issue
* Use normal indent
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Discarded upstream changes: we have our own README
- `app/controllers/follower_accounts_controller.rb`:
Port upstream's minor refactoring
Conflicts:
- `app/models/concerns/domain_materializable.rb`:
Fixed a code style issue upstream in a PR that got merged in glitch-soc
earlier.
Changed the code to match upstream's.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-image.yml`:
Upstream changed how docker images were built, including how
they were cached.
I don't know much about it, so applied upstream's changes.
- `app/controllers/admin/domain_blocks_controller.rb`:
The feature, that was in glitch-soc, got backported upstream.
It also had a few fixes upstream, so those have been ported!
- `app/javascript/packs/admin.js`:
Glitch-soc changes have been backported upstream. As a result,
some code from `app/javascript/core/admin.js` got added upstream.
Kept our version since our shared Javascript already has that feature.
- `app/models/user.rb`:
Upstream added something to distinguish unusable and unusable-because-moved
accounts, while glitch-soc considers moved accounts usable.
Took upstream's code for `functional_or_moved?` and made `functional?`
call it.
- `app/views/statuses/_simple_status.html.haml`:
Upstream cleaned up code style a bit, on a line that we had custom changes
for.
Applied upstream's change while keeping our change.
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream adopted one CSP directive we already had.
The conflict is because of our files being structurally different, but the
change itself was already part of glitch-soc.
Kept our version.
Conflicts:
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Our config file is pretty different from upstream.
Upstream changed CSP directive `script-src` to include
`wasm-unsafe-eval` instead of `unsafe-eval`, which we
did not include.
Added `wasm-unsafe-eval` to `script-src` to fix
execution of the OCR web worker.
- `package.json`:
Upstream updated a dependency (`array-includes`) textually
adjacent to a glitch-soc-only dependency (`atrament`).
Updated `array-includes` as upstream did.
Several controlers set quite intricate Cache-Control headers in order to
hopefully not be cached by any intermediate proxies or local caches. Unfortunately,
these headers are processed by ActionDispatch::HTTP::Cache in a way that squashes
and discards any values set alongside no-store other than private:
8015c2c2cf/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/http/cache.rb (L207-L209)
We want to preserve no-store on these responses, but we might as well remove
parts that are going to be dropped anyway. As many of the endpoints in these
controllers are private to a particular user, we should also add "private",
which will be preserved alongside no-store.
Conflicts:
- `app/views/admin/announcements/edit.html.haml`:
Upstream change too close to theming-related glitch-soc change.
Ported upstream changes.
- `app/views/admin/announcements/new.html.haml`
Upstream change too close to theming-related glitch-soc change.
Ported upstream changes.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/account.rb`:
Conflict because we (glitch-soc) have disabled trending of posts without
review.
Discarded that upstream change.
- `app/views/admin/settings/discovery/show.html.haml`:
Just an extra setting in glitch-soc.
Kept that extra setting.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/custom_emoji.rb`:
Not a real conflict, just upstream changing a line too close to
a glitch-soc-specific validation.
Applied upstream changes.
- `app/models/public_feed.rb`:
Not a real conflict, just upstream changing a line too close to
a glitch-soc-specific parameter documentation.
Applied upstream changes.
fef