Fix issue list for closed issues without closed_at

added backend devopsplan groupproject management sectiondev typebug labels

assigned to @engwan

Suggested Reviewers (beta)

The individuals below may be good candidates to participate in the review based on various factors.

You can use slash commands in comments to quickly assign /assign_reviewer @user1.

Suggested Reviewers
`@kushalpandya`, `@rymai`, `@ohoral`, `@ntepluhina`, `@acroitor`

If you do not believe these suggestions are useful, please apply the label Bad Suggested Reviewer. You can also provide feedback for this feature on this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/357923.

Automatically generated by Suggested Reviewers Bot - an experimental ML-based recommendation engine created by ~"group::applied ml".

1 Warning

This merge request changed undocumented Vue components in vue_shared/. Please consider creating Stories for these components:

app/assets/javascripts/vue_shared/issuable/list/components/issuable_item.vue

1 Message

CHANGELOG missing:

If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab FOSS, add the Changelog trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog.

If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab EE, also add the EE: true trailer to your commit message.

If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
backend	Piotr Skorupa (`@pskorupa`) (UTC+2, 6 hours behind `@engwan`)	Bob Van Landuyt (`@reprazent`) (UTC+2, 6 hours behind `@engwan`)
frontend	Hinam Mehra (`@hmehra`) (UTC+10, 2 hours ahead of `@engwan`)	Mike Greiling (`@mikegreiling`) (UTC-5, 13 hours behind `@engwan`)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

Generated by Danger

marked the checklist item I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR. as completed

changed milestone to %15.2

mentioned in issue #366580 (closed)

changed the description

@ntepluhina @acroitor can you review this small follow-up fix to !90570 (merged)?

requested review from @acroitor and @ntepluhina

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits a387ecca and 062a1c9c

Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	3.54 MB	3.54 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	1.98 MB	1.98 MB	-	0.0 %

Note: We do not have exact data for a387ecca. So we have used data from: 2e888a8a.
The target commit was too new, so we used the latest commit from master we have info on.
It might help to rerun the bundle-size-review job
This might mean that you have a few false positives in this report. If something unrelated to your code changes is reported, you can check this comparison in order to see if they caused this change.

Please look at the full report for more details

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

review-qa-blocking: test report for 062a1c9c

expand test summary

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                              suites summary                               |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                      | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create               | 23     | 0      | 2       | 23    | 25    | ❗     |
| Verify               | 12     | 0      | 1       | 12    | 13    | ❗     |
| Manage               | 35     | 0      | 2       | 37    | 37    | ❗     |
| Version sanity check | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Plan                 | 48     | 0      | 1       | 48    | 49    | ❗     |
| Protect              | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Secure               | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Package              | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Configure            | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                | 122    | 0      | 9       | 124   | 131   | ❗     |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

approved this merge request

@engwan frontend LGTM

removed review request for @ntepluhina

@ntepluhina, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline has been started.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

thanks for the fix @engwan

approved this merge request

merged

@acroitor, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline finished more than 2 hours ago, you should:

Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
Set the merge request to merge when pipeline succeeds.

This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.

(Improve this message?)