Fix issue overview for teams

[Gusted]

• Don't use hacky solution to limit to the correct RepoID's, instead use current code to handle these limits. The existing code is more correct than the hacky solution.
• Resolves Issue totals are wrong when filtering by team #19636

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@5ca224a). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 20.68%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #19652   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   47.35%           
=======================================
  Files           ?      957           
  Lines           ?   133318           
  Branches        ?        0           
=======================================
  Hits            ?    63132           
  Misses          ?    62544           
  Partials        ?     7642           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
models/issue.go	52.73% <18.51%> (ø)
routers/web/user/home.go	65.10% <50.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5ca224a...8a05ad7. Read the comment docs.

[zeripath]

There's quite a few IN SELECTs in there and whilst the SQL is correct I'm wondering if we might want to use a few JOINS instead of chains of IN SELECTs - however perhaps we should consider that for another PR.

[Gusted]

There's quite a few IN SELECTs in there and whilst the SQL is correct I'm wondering if we might want to use a few JOINS instead of chains of IN SELECTs - however perhaps we should consider that for another PR.

Feel free to do it. This is a plain copy-paste of the SQL that is otherwise used by the function(IsOwnedBy). I already found it a mystery that it worked first-try.

[lunny]

There's quite a few IN SELECTs in there and whilst the SQL is correct I'm wondering if we might want to use a few JOINS instead of chains of IN SELECTs - however perhaps we should consider that for another PR.

A subquery maybe faster than join in modern databases.

[lunny]

Could we have a test which could reproduce #19636 ? So that we can prevent to repeat the problem.

[Gusted]

Added it: 50e61af

Quite annoying to debug the SQL statements to only realize that rows on the test database is set to NULL which conflicts with a real-world-data database.

[wxiaoguang]

Seems good. If I understand correctly, the major change between this one and the code before the last PR is : Check if the user is in the owner team of the organisation., and fixes the bug caused by opts.RepoCond = models.SearchRepositoryCondition(repoOpts)

[Gusted]

the major change between this one and the code before the last PR is : Check if the user is in the owner team of the organisation.,

Yes, this caused my previous PR to be incorrect, as I thought this was already implemented so I adjusted the code until it had that result(but was actually incorrect).

and fixes the bug caused by opts.RepoCond = models.SearchRepositoryCondition(repoOpts)

Yup, by using the already supported TeamID option.