Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream README has been changed, but we have a completely different one.
Kept our `README.md`.
- `lib/sanitize_ext/sanitize_config.rb`:
Upstream added support for more incoming HTML tags (a large subset of what
glitch-soc accepts).
Change the code style to match upstream's but otherwise do not change our
code.
- `spec/lib/sanitize_config_spec.rb`:
Upstream added support for more incoming HTML tags (a large subset of what
glitch-soc accepts).
Kept our version, since the tests are mostly glitch-soc's, except for cases
which are purposefuly different.
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.
* Add peers endpoint toggle to Server Settings
This places the toggle under "Discovery" and expands the hint text to explain further what the endpoint is used for. Added a "Recommended" tag since it was recommended in v3 before it was removed.
Fixes https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/22222
* i18n normalize step
* Change admin report handling UI to display appropriate text for remote reports
Change from “Decide which action to take to resolve this report. If you take a
punitive action against the reported account, an e-mail notification will be
sent to them, except when the Spam category is selected.” to “Decide which
action to take to resolve this report. This will only affect how your server
communicates with this remote account and handle its content.”
* Reword admin actions descriptions to make clear which admin actions close reports
* Do not offer to mark statuses as sensitive if there is no undeleted status with media attachments
* Fix crash when marking statuses as sensitive while some statuses are deleted
Fixes#21910
* Fix multiple strikes being created for a single report when selecting “Mark as sensitive”
* Add tests
Conflicts:
- `app/models/status.rb`:
Minor upstream refactor moved hook definitions around,
and glitch-soc has an extra `before_create`.
Moved the `before_create` accordingly.
- `app/services/batched_remove_status_service.rb`:
Minor upstream refactor changed a block in which glitch-soc
had one extra call to handle direct timelines.
Adapted changes to keep glitch-soc's extra call.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream updated its README, while we have a completely different one.
Kept our README.
- `app/controllers/concerns/web_app_controller_concern.rb`:
Conflict because of glitch-soc's theming system.
Additionally, glitch-soc has different behavior regarding moved accounts.
Ported some of the changes, but kept our overall behavior.
- `app/javascript/packs/admin.js`:
Code changes actually applied to `app/javascript/core/admin.js`
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Discarded upstream changes: we have our own README
- `app/controllers/follower_accounts_controller.rb`:
Port upstream's minor refactoring
* Fix remaining plain %time to %time.formatted
* Add %time.relative-formatted to client format dates on the current day
* Add missing comma dangle to formats
* Use client side message format instead of the server
* Add fallback message to relatve_format.today
* Remove unused translation key and fix js lint issue
Co-authored-by: Effy Elden <effy@effy.space>
* Change suspension text to mention that a remotely suspended account is not locally-suspended
* Add ability to refresh profile of remotely suspended accounts
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:
- `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.
Claire