Signed-off-by: NDmitriy Zaporozhets <dmitriy.zaporozhets@gmail.com>

Fix randomly failing specs (possibly caused by DatabaseCleaner)

## What does this MR do?

This MR ensures that DatabaseCleaner.clean runs AFTER Capybara's cleanup. This is needed because it *seems* like database is being truncated before capybara session ends, which leads to `undefined method ... for nil:NilClass` exceptions causing tests to randomly fail.

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

Failing spec is https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/spec/features/boards/boards_spec.rb. Here are some examples of failed builds: 

- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/builds/3352437
- https://gitlab.com/certik/gitlab-ce/builds/3359940
- https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/builds/3365914

## Why was this MR needed?

I've noticed that many branches suffer from random failures and it's not very comfortable for big test suite. Re-running builds until they pass is not a solution so I tried to come up with a fix. Unfortunately I can't be 100% sure about this fix (flaky test is always green on my local environment, so I can't be sure if green build on CI is false-positive or not), but if database is really being cleaned too early (which is clearly proved by logs provided here https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/21841#note_14926675 then it's very likely that this fix will help to get rid of random failures.

Also it's officially recommended in DatabaseCleaner README to use `append_after` hook instead of just `after` because of the way RSpec runs after hooks (in reverse order):

> It's also recommended to use append_after to ensure DatabaseCleaner.clean runs after the after-test cleanup capybara/rspec installs.

([source](https://github.com/DatabaseCleaner/database_cleaner#rspec-with-capybara-example))

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

#21197

See merge request !6198

Added cron to prune events older than 12 months.

See merge request !6200

Fix layout issues with blame table

## What does this MR do?

Fixes layout issues with the blame before. Previously the content would expanded out of the table making it look ugly!

## Screenshots (if relevant)

![Screen_Shot_2016-09-06_at_10.36.17](/uploads/719fc7cdf909b18afbe8afafbae7d99a/Screen_Shot_2016-09-06_at_10.36.17.png)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Closes #21216

See merge request !6218

Refactor sidebar logic for more predictable behavior

## What does this MR do?

Fixes a few bugs with the sidebar and "pin" functionality:

1. Pinned state would get reset when loading a page with a viewport smaller than 1024px (#19183)
2. Toggle buttons could occasionally end up in an invalid state in which the toggle is hidden from view at the same time the sidebar is collapsed.
    ![2016-09-03-09.39.07](/uploads/75d9a836ab58aae9f89f38cc29e90bbd/2016-09-03-09.39.07.gif)

3. Clicking outside the sidebar to trigger 'collapse' when below the 1024px breakpoint would work only if not pinned, even though pin status should only effect the sidebar above the 1024px breakpoint.
4. Code confusing with no single source of truth for the state of the sidebar.  Sometimes pinned state is inferred from the cookie, sometimes from the DOM.  Code to handle these functions was confusingly split across both `sidebar.js` and `application.js` for no apparent reason.

I've created a singleton ES6 class to handle the sidebar DOM manipulations, using the properties `isExpanded` and `isPinned` as the canonical state and providing a `renderState` method to sync the DOM with this state whenever it needs updating.  This avoids the possibility of invalid states caused by reliance on jQuery `toggleClass()` methods and makes the code much more readable/maintainable.

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

It is a substantial rewrite, so I could use another set of eyes to make sure nothing was left behind from the original implementation.

## Why was this MR needed?

I initially intended to just fix #19183 by modifying the code in place, but it proved to be a difficult mess and rather than add to the technical debt it made sense to write a more readable implementation of the sidebar functionality.

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
  - [ ] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

Closes #19183

See merge request !6169

update rouge to 2.0.6

## What does this MR do?

Bumps rouge to 2.0.6

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

Changelog here: https://github.com/jneen/rouge/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#version-206-2016-09-07


## Why was this MR needed?

## Screenshots (if relevant)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [ ] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- Tests
  - [ ] Added for this feature/bug
  - [ ] All builds are passing
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

See merge request !6251

Fix project settings field

fixes #21821

See merge request !6185

Add textarea autoresize after comment

## What does this MR do?
Adds an autoresize after a comment is posted

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Shouldn't be

## Why was this MR needed?
To keep the UI consistent (the same as if you were to refresh it)

## Screenshots (if relevant)
Before:
![IyCczzXfaf](/uploads/2229bad47e3f3821f1efaa6868a52025/IyCczzXfaf.gif)

After:
![E6O0kRBrJq](/uploads/4aec6b436ff172ba281c2c2a4481906d/E6O0kRBrJq.gif)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
  - [x] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #21667

See merge request !6152

Fix contributions calendar month label truncation

## What does this MR do?
Expands the width of the contributions calendar by 3px when the last column is a new month to prevent the month label from being truncated

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Shouldn't be

## Why was this MR needed?
Fixes an existing UI issue

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #20844 

## Screenshots (if relevant)
Before:
![Screen_Shot_2016-08-11_at_1.24.47_PM](/uploads/682a616a335fffd610342037c41ab9ad/Screen_Shot_2016-08-11_at_1.24.47_PM.png)

After:
![Screen_Shot_2016-08-11_at_1.24.13_PM](/uploads/6e7aa12dd9e3a2c570f1327aaef09fc7/Screen_Shot_2016-08-11_at_1.24.13_PM.png)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

See merge request !5779

sync sidebar DOM state on page:change to minimize split-second appearance of the sidebar in certain situations

Old deployments of Gitlab might have a big number of old events to be
deleted. Such numbers cause the worker to timeout.
I've limited the amount of rows that should be destroyed at once to
10000, and increased how often pruning shall take place to 4 times a
day.

Since contribution calendar shows only 12 months of activity,
events older than that time are not visible anywhere and can be
safely pruned saving big amount of database storage.

Fixes #21164

Replace animateEmoji timeout with eventListener

## What does this MR do?
Replaces the end animation timeout for awards_handler.js with an eventListener that listens for the animationEnd event

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Check for any side effects

## Why was this MR needed?
Improve code quality so that it is easier to understand

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #20679 

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- Tests
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

See merge request !5690

Pass dependencies to CI configuration nodes

## What does this MR do?

This MR makes it possible to pass dependencies to CI configuration nodes.

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

See #15060

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- Tests
  - [x] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing

See merge request !6009

Fix merge conflict size limit

## What does this MR do?

The merge conflict size limit was set to 100 KB, but the docs (and the test repo, which the feature specs use) say 200 KB!

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

Don't think so.

## Why was this MR needed?

Derp.

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- Tests
  - [x] Added for this feature/bug
  - [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

See merge request !6052

Escape search terms before passing to Regexp

## What does this MR do?

Use `Regexp.escape` to escape the search terms before passing them to `Regexp.new`.

## Why was this MR needed?

- evaluated regular expressions in search terms lead to unexpected result
- unbalanced parentheses in search term lead to server error 

## TODO

- [ ] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

fixes #14360

See merge request !6241

Use PipelinesFinder in Pipelines API

## What does this MR do?

Sort output for the API endpoint, and uses the PipelinesFinder there.

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [x] API support added
- Tests
  - [x] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #21566

See merge request !6094

Fix styling of shortcuts modal

## What does this MR do?

Fixes some weird height issue in the shortcuts modal.

## Screenshots (if relevant)

### Before

![Screen_Shot_2016-09-07_at_15.13.09](/uploads/5c4d7716e355794c8aa9764e0fa53f4e/Screen_Shot_2016-09-07_at_15.13.09.png)

### After

![Screen_Shot_2016-09-07_at_15.12.57](/uploads/6f5c145963b4b89910be44b6b254e117/Screen_Shot_2016-09-07_at_15.12.57.png)

See merge request !6244

Add issues filters reset btn

## What does this MR do?

Adds a button to the issues filter to reset all filters. I also lightly refactored a nearby method.

## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?

At the moment, the user can click the reset button even when no filters have been set. I didn't really like how it looked flashing the link on and off depending on whether a user had added a filter. I prefer having it there all the time, so the user is aware of it. But it wouldn't be difficult to hide if no filters have been set, if that's preferred.

## Why was this MR needed?

So users can reset filters when they're filtering issues.

## What are the relevant issue numbers?

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/14016

## Screenshots (if relevant)

![reset-filters](/uploads/562916158ce7b0179794e19f88f5c2e3/reset-filters.png)

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [X] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [X] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [X] API support added
- Tests
  - [x] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing
- [X] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [X] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [X] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)

See merge request !5330

Fix: Switch sample values for $CI_SERVER_REVISION and $CI_SERVER_VERSION.

See the general Documentation guidelines http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/doc_styleguide.html.

## What does this MR do?

There is a sample in this document showing the possible values of the predefined CI variables. Those of **CI_SERVER_REVISION** and **CI_SERVER_VERSION** were mixed up. I fixed that.

See merge request !6243

API for CI Lint

## What does this MR do?
Add API for CI Lint. Can check if `.gitlab-ci.yml` content is valid.

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #15571 

## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

- [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added
- [x] API support added
- [x] Documentation
- Tests
  - [x] Added for this feature/bug
  - [x] All builds are passing

cc @ubudzisz @grzesiek @yorickpeterse

See merge request !5953

Issue #21440: Small fix to curl example for adding member to project

## What does this MR do?
Two lines changed in docs to move the user_id field out of the url and onto the query string 

## Why was this MR needed?
Issue #21440 reported under Issues. The documentation example for adding members to a project had a slight problem. 

## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #21440.

See merge request !6236

Gitlab -> GitLab

## What does this MR do?
Fix GitLab capitalization

See merge request !6235