Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-image.yml`:
Upstream switched to pushing to both DockerHub and GitHub Container
Repository, while glitch-soc was already pushing to the latter only.
Updated our configuration to be slightly more consistent with upstream's
naming and styling, but kept our behavior.
- `Gemfile.lock`:
Updated dependencies textually too close to glitch-soc only hcaptcha
dependency.
Updated dependencies as upstream did.
- `README.md`:
Upstream updated its README, but we have a completely different one.
Kept our README, though it probably should be reworked at some point.
- `app/views/auth/sessions/two_factor.html.haml`:
Minor style fix upstream that's on a line glitch-soc removed because
of its different theming system.
Kept our file as is.
- `spec/controllers/health_controller_spec.rb`:
This file apparently did not exist upstream, upstream created it with
different contents but it is functionally the same.
Switched to upstream's version of the file.
- `spec/presenters/instance_presenter_spec.rb`:
Upstream changed the specs around `GITHUB_REPOSITORY`, while glitch-soc
had its own code because it's a fork and does not have the same default
source URL.
Took upstream's change, but with glitch-soc's repo as the default case.
- `yarn.lock`:
Upstream dependencies textually too close to a glitch-soc only one.
Updated dependencies as upstream did.
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 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.
* Add --include-subdomains option to tootctl domains purge
* Add support for '*.' subdomain wildcard patterns in `tootctl domains purge`
* Fix custom emojis deletion not following subdomain and URI options
* Change `tootctl domains purge` to not purge domain blocks unless --purge-domain-blocks is passed
* Refactor `tootctl domains purge`
* Add feedback on deleted domain blocks
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
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.
As pointed out by https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/21297#discussion_r1028372193
at least one of our dependencies already dropped support for Ruby 2.6, and we
had removed Ruby 2.6 tests from the CI over a year ago (#16861).
So stop advertising Ruby 2.6 support, bump targeted version, and drop some
compatibility code.
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.
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.
