Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream has updated its README, we have a completely different one.
Kept ours.
- `app/views/auth/sessions/two_factor.html.haml`:
Upstream refactored stuff and the conflict is because of glitch-soc's theming
system.
Ported upstream changes while accounting for the different theming system.
Conflicts:
- `app/controllers/concerns/web_app_controller_concern.rb`:
Upstream changed the order of Action Controller filters for web app
controllers.
Glitch-soc has an extra filter due to its theming system.
Changed the order accordingly.
- `app/views/settings/preferences/appearance/show.html.haml`:
Conflict due to an extra newline in glitch-soc.
Removed that newline and applied upstream's changes.
Conflicts:
- `app/controllers/auth/registrations_controller.rb`:
Not a real conflict. Upstream removed the `set_instance_presenter` private
method from this class, and glitch-soc has an extra private method right
besides it for the theming system.
Removed `set_instance_presenter` as upstream did.
- `app/controllers/auth/sessions_controller.rb`:
Not a real conflict. Upstream removed the `set_instance_presenter` private
method from this class, and glitch-soc has an extra private method right
besides it for the theming system.
Removed `set_instance_presenter` as upstream did.
Conflicts:
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream added some code to add the Identity Provider's sign-in endpoint to
the `form-action` Content Security Policy directive but our version of the
file is pretty different.
Ported the change.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/form/admin_settings.rb`:
Upstream added the notion of overriden settings, while we had extra code for
pseudo-settings (only used to combine flavour and skin in a single select
field).
Ported upstream changes.
- `config/i18n-tasks.yml`:
Upstream added `simple_form.overridden` to `ignore_unused`,
we had `simple_form.glitch_only`.
Added `simple_form.glitch_only` as well.
Conflicts:
- `.github/workflows/build-releases.yml`:
Upstream changed comments close to a line we modified to account for
different container image repositories.
Updated the comments as upstream did.
Conflicts:
- `README.md`:
Upstream has updated their README, we have a completely different one.
Kept ours.
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream has updated their development CSPs, while we disable CSPs in
the development environment.
Kept our version.
Conflicts:
- `app/javascript/packs/public.jsx`:
Upstream updated code that we actually moved to `app/javascript/core/settings.js`.
Applied the changes there.
Conflicts:
- `app/views/settings/preferences/other/show.html.haml`:
Upstream moved some settings, where glitch-soc has an extra setting.
Ported upstream changes, moving the same settings as them.
Conflicts:
- `.rubocop_todo.yml`:
Upstream regenerated this file, glitch-soc had a specific ignore.
- `README.md`:
Upstream updated its README, but glitch-soc has a completely different one.
Kept glitch-soc's README
Conflicts:
- `app/controllers/authorize_interactions_controller.rb`:
Small conflict due to our theming system.
- `streaming/index.js`:
Upstream refactored part of the streaming server.
We had some extra logic for handling local-only posts.
Applied the refactor.
Conflicts:
- `db/schema.rb`:
Upstream regenerated the schema file using Rails 7, the conflicts are
caused by our extra columns.
Applied upstream's changes, but keeping our extra columns.
Conflicts:
- `app/models/account.rb`:
Upstream added new validations close to lines on which glitch-soc had
modified validations to handle custom limits set through environment
variables.
Ported upstream changes.
- `config/initializers/content_security_policy.rb`:
Upstream added `AZURE_ALIAS_HOST`. Glitch-soc's version of the file is
completely different.
Added `AZURE_ALIAS_HOST` to our version of the file.
