Project columns and cards use a sorting field for ordering, but nothing prevents duplicate values from being inserted. This causes unpredictable ordering and makes swap-based reordering unsafe. Additionally, the same issue can be added to a project multiple times, which shouldn't be possible.
This PR adds a migration to clean up existing data and enforce three unique constraints:
- (project_id, sorting) on project_board — one sorting value per column per project
- (project_id, issue_id) on project_issue — one card per issue per project
- (project_board_id, sorting) on project_issue — one sorting value per card per column
The migration deduplicates existing rows and reassigns sequential sorting values before adding the constraints.
Changes
- Migration: fix duplicate sorting values in project_board and project_issue, remove duplicate (project_id, issue_id) rows, add three unique constraints
- MoveColumnsOnProject: two-phase swap (negate then set) to avoid constraint collisions
- MoveIssuesOnProjectColumn: three-phase approach with duplicate validation and sorted lock ordering
- UpdateColumn: always persist sorting field (allows setting to 0)
- GetDefaultColumn: query max sorting before auto-creating
- createDefaultColumnsForProject: explicit sequential sorting
- changeProjectStatus: only set ClosedDateUnix when closing
## 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...
- [x] 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/11334
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org>
Co-committed-by: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org>
- Consider the following scenario: a private repository in an organization with a team that has no specific access to that repository. Members of that team are still able to visit the repository because of entries in the `access` table.
- Consider this specific scenario for the gathering of issues for project tables.
- Unit test added
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#7217
- Ref: forgejo/forgejo#6843
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7270
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
