the radical change in the implementation doesn't stem from the glimmer migration, but rather the fact that previously the component was single-use – changing any of its args didn't (and couldn't) be reflected because hljs was replacing the nodes so all the ember bookkeeping was gone.
Co-authored-by: David Taylor <david@taylorhq.com>
There is a risk of overriding and then deleting a prop of the context in case of a naming clash between localName and that prop, e.g.
```js
class Test {
item = "foo";
items = [1, 2];
}
const template = `
{{#each items as |item|}}
{{item}}
{{/each}}
`;
const compiledTemplate = compile(template);
const object = new Test();
// object.item === "foo"
const output = compiledTemplate(object, RUNTIME_OPTIONS);
// object.item === undefined
```
…but I think we can accept this risk and just be careful.`#each` isn't widely used in hbr anyway (as proven by the other long-standing and recently fixed bug) and hbr is on its way out anyway.
his is a new feature that lets admins dismiss notices from the dashboard. This helps with self-service in cases where a notice is "stuck", while we work on provisions to prevent "sticking" in the first place.
Seeing errors like the following which is normally due to us running
too many processes.
```
not ok 292 Firefox - [undefined ms] - error
---
message: >
Error: Browser timeout exceeded: 10s
Error while executing test: Acceptance: Uppy Composer Attachment - Multiple Upload Errors: should show a consolidated message for multiple failed uploads
Stderr:
*** You are running in headless mode.
Stdout:
[GFX1-]: glxtest: libpci missing
[GFX1-]: glxtest: Unable to open a connection to the X server
[GFX1-]: No GPUs detected via PCI
[GFX1-]: RenderCompositorSWGL failed mapping default framebuffer, no dt
```
In some very rare cases, the header element doesn't yet have the bg
when this code is run. This PR adds a simple retry mechanism.
No tests because this relies on specific load timing from the browser.
Under certain conditions, a recurring automation can end up in a state with no pending automation records, causing it to not execute again until manually triggered.
We use the `RRule` gem to calculate the next execution date and time for recurring automations. The gem takes the interval, frequency, start date, and a time range, and returns all dates/times within this range that meet the recurrence rule. For example:
```ruby
RRule::Rule
.new("FREQ=DAILY;INTERVAL=1", dtstart: Time.parse("2023-01-01 07:30:00 UTC"))
.between(Time.zone.now, Time.zone.now + 2.days)
# => [Sat, 14 Sep 2024 07:30:00.000000000 UTC +00:00, Sun, 15 Sep 2024 07:30:00.000000000 UTC +00:00]
```
However, if the time component of the first point provided to `.between()` is slightly ahead of the start date (e.g., `dtstart`), the first date/time returned by `RRule` can fall outside the specified range by the same subsecond amount. For instance:
```ruby
RRule::Rule
.new("FREQ=DAILY;INTERVAL=1", dtstart: Time.parse("2023-01-01 07:30:00 UTC"))
.between(Time.parse("2023-01-01 07:30:00.999 UTC"), Time.parse("2023-01-03 07:30:00 UTC"))
.first
# => Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:30:00.000000000 UTC +00:00
```
Here, the start date/time given to `.between()` is 999 milliseconds after 07:30:00, but the first date returned is exactly 07:30:00 without the 999 milliseconds. This causes the next recurring date to fall into the past if the automation executes within a subsecond of the start time, leading to the automation stalling.
I'm not sure why `RRule` does this, but it seems intentional judging by the source of the `.between()` method:
b9911b7147/lib/rrule/rule.rb (L28-L32)
This commit fixes the issue by selecting the first date ahead of the current time from the list returned by `RRule`, rather than the first date directly.
Internal topic: t/138045.
This change adds full names to direct message channel titles when the following conditions are met:
- SiteSetting.enable_names = true
- SiteSetting.display_name_on_posts = true
- SiteSetting.prioritize_username_in_ux = false
If a user's full name is blank, it will fallback to their username in both 1-1 channels and Group DM channels.
In TopicController, in addition to ensure_can_move_posts!, we also
checked if the topic is private message in this line:
```ruby
raise Discourse::InvalidAccess if params[:archetype] == "private_message" && !guardian.is_staff?
```
However, this was not present in `guardian.can_move_posts?`. As a result,
the frontend topic view got an incorrect serialized result, thinking
that TL4 could move the private message post. In fact, once they tried
to move it, they got the `InvalidAccess` error message.
This commit fixes that TL4 will no longer sees the "move to" option in
the "select post" panel for a private message.
Anonymous users are "shadow" users created when an existing real user desires to post anonymously. This feature is off by default, but it can be enabled via the `allow_anonymous_posting` site setting. Those shadow users shouldn't be included in the users directory (`/u`).
docker.io rate limits _should_ be addressed now. Switch back to
`debian-12` runners.
This is now a conditional within the `tests` workflow as we evaluate the
migration.
This reverts commit a99e2c62e6.
In 14cf8eacf1, we added the
`user_search_similar_results` site setting which when enabled will use
trigram matching for similarity search in `UserSearch`. However, we
noted that adding the `index_users_on_username_lower_trgm` index is
causing the PG planner to not use the `index_users_on_username_lower`
index when the `=` operator is used against the `username_lower` column.
Based on the PG mailing list discussion where support for the `=`
operator in gist_trgm_ops was being considered, it stated that "I also have checked that btree_gist is preferred over pg_trgm gist
index for equality search." This is however quite different from reality
on our own PG clusters where the btree index is not preferred leading to
significantly slower queries when the `=` operator is used.
Since the pg_trgm gist index is only used for queries when the `user_search_similar_results` site setting
is enabled, we decided to drop the feature instead as it is hidden and
disabled by default. As such, we can consider it experiemental and drop
it without deprecation.
PG mailing list discussiong: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfducQ0U8noyb2L3VChsyBMsc5V2Ej2whmEuxmAgHa2jVXg%40mail.gmail.com
