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>
- Do an access check when loading issues for a project column, currently
this is not done and exposes the title, labels and existence of a
private issue that the viewer of the project board may not have access
to.
- The number of issues cannot be calculated in a efficient manner
and stored in the database because their number may vary depending on
the visibility of the repositories participating in the project. The
previous implementation used the pre-calculated numbers stored in each
project, which did not reflect that potential variation.
- The code is derived from https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22865
This PR split the `Board` into two parts. One is the struct has been
renamed to `Column` and the second we have a `Template Type`.
But to make it easier to review, this PR will not change the database
schemas, they are just renames. The database schema changes could be in
future PRs.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
(cherry picked from commit 98751108b11dc748cc99230ca0fc1acfdf2c8929)
Conflicts:
docs/content/administration/config-cheat-sheet.en-us.md
docs/content/index.en-us.md
docs/content/installation/comparison.en-us.md
docs/content/usage/permissions.en-us.md
non existent files
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
routers/web/web.go
templates/repo/header.tmpl
templates/repo/settings/options.tmpl
trivial context conflicts
