forked from mirrors/forgejo
1,586 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Andreas Ahlenstorf
|
92863bb103 |
feat: expose run_id in ...actions/runners/jobs endpoint (#12480)
Include `run_id` in the responses emitted by all `...actions/runners/jobs` endpoints. Helps with correlating pending jobs with other jobs and the runs they belong to. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes (can be removed for JavaScript changes) - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Tests for JavaScript changes (can be removed for Go changes) - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)). ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. *The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.* The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12480 Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Thanos Apollo
|
3a35c5353e |
feat: expose AGit topic branch in API PR head label (#12352)
For Agit-flow pull requests, `head.label` was explicitly set to an empty string. The head branch name (which contains the Agit topic, e.g. `user2/my-topic`) was already populated from `pr.HeadBranch` but then discarded. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12352 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org> |
||
Antonin Delpeuch
|
115f8594cf |
fix: paginate team members list (#12447)
Fixes #12103. Paginate the list of team members on the page for that team. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12447 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
famfo
|
5022be3029 |
fix(activitypub): cover all routes with signature checks (#12339)
This changes the ReqHTTPSignature middleware to cover the entire activitypub route group to not miss any new routes again in the future. Further, this adds a tests iterating through all activitypub routes to test that the signature verification is actually done. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12339 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Gabor Pihaj
|
f55f3481f2 |
test: fix flaky integration test (#12441)
See #12353 for more details ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes (can be removed for JavaScript changes) - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. *The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.* The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12441 Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Gusted
|
bf958fa355 |
fix: make package cleanup work again (#12446)
- Regression of forgejo/forgejo!11776 (and forgejo/forgejo!11881) - Scope of the transaction is moved to a per-package cleanup rule basis. This is also a enhancement for scaling (already deployed on Codeberg for a while). - Package cleanup is now run with `RetryTx`, because rebuilding repository files runs `RetryTx` and it could indicate to retry the whole transaction. - Previously it would error and say running `RetryTx` in a transaction was not possible, this is now possible. Nested `RetryTx` is always allowed, matching of which errors to retry is still the responsible of the inner `RetryTx`. Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12446 Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Gusted
|
c07ea09050 |
fix: cleanup data before migration retry (#12370)
In the case you hit some API error (Github ratelimit was often a problem) or the instance restarted in the middle of your migration, you would be left with data on the disk and/or database. Upon retrying the migration the migration code would (rightfully) fail because it's trying to migrate stuff that already exists.
This was hit so often on Codeberg it was better to force people to delete and start whole migration process again:
|
||
Mathieu Fenniak
|
e89312de9b |
ci: fix merge conflict in test between #12355 & #12364 (#12401)
Both #12355 and #12364 passed CIs individually, but when combined a new test added in #12364 was broken by the change in #12355. Fixes the authorized integration test to use the new immutable subject format. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12401 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
9b88e77c19 |
feat: expose immutable identifiers in Forgejo Actions JWTs (#12355)
Protect OIDC tokens generated by Forgejo Actions from threats arising when users or repositories are renamed or deleted, freeing their names up for reuse by another user. In this threat environment, relying on the name of users and repositories in validating JWT claims is unsafe because they can change. Adds three new claims to Actions' OIDC tokens: - `actor_id` -- the immutable identifier of the actor who triggered an Action run - `repository_id` -- the immutable identifier of the repository on which the Action is running - `repository_owner_id` -- the immutable identifier of the owner of the repository on which the Action is running Repositories will change their subject (`sub`) OIDC claims to include these immutable identifiers. Existing repositories will not change, in order to maintain compatibility with existing JWT usage. The new format will be applied to new repositories, or can be applied by disabling and enabling the Actions unit. The new format embeds the identifiers: - **Existing repos:** `repo:my-org/my-repo:ref:refs/heads/main` - **New repos:** `repo:my-org-123456/my-repo-456789:ref:refs/heads/main` Fixes #12244. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - New fields will be added to documentation soon. - [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12355 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Gusted
|
555d88070d |
feat: migrate show-modal to native dialogs (#10287)
Test coverage: |Modal|Test| |-|-| |admin: adopt unadopted|missing, not needed| |admin: delete unadopted|missing, not needed| |admin: delete user|e2e added: `Admin: delete a user`| |delete package|missing| |new project|?| |edit project col|?| |default project col|?| |delete project col|?| |commit cherry-pick|?| |commit delete note|?| |fork redirect|?| |lock/unlock issue|?| |dismiss PR review|?| |migration delete|?| |migration cancel|?| |lfs delete|?| |convert mirror|?| |convert fork|?| |transfer repo|?| |delete repo|?| |archive repo|integration present, selectors adjusted| |delete wiki|?| |rename wiki branch|?| |push mirror edit|?| |mde: new table|e2e present, selectors adjusted| |mde: new link|e2e present, selectors adjusted| |actions: add secret|?| |actions: edit variable|?| Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10287 Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Thomas Teixeira
|
731334e973 |
fix(web): org projects assignment in issue view (#7999)
Allows user to assign organization projects to their new issues, using the project sidebar selector, even when repository's projects are disabled. Moreover, the project sidebar selector is now hidden if no projects (repository-wide + organization-wide) are available. Fixes forgejo/forgejo#5666 Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7999 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
7fc236c589 |
feat: allow Forgejo Actions to be used an Authorized Integration in-memory with internal issuer (#12364)
Allow JWTs that are generated by Forgejo Actions to be validated within Forgejo in-memory. Without any special support for this internal access situation, these problems would occur: 1. Forgejo would need to make an HTTP request to itself to get the valid public key for the JWT, in order to validate its signature. This is a waste of resources, and introduces a self-DoS risk. 2. Forgejo would need to be available via TLS in order for Actions to make service calls to Forgejo with that JWT, due to the TLS requirement for public key fetching. This would be a blocker for writing end-to-end tests for Forgejo, but also would affect users who do not host Forgejo with TLS. 3. Authorized Integrations would need to be saved with the `issuer` URL of Forgejo. If Forgejo's own `setting.AppURL` changed, all the persisted records in the database would become incorrect. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12364 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Mauritz Sjödin
|
254a44b97b |
feat: show breadcrumb path in path filtered commit history view (#12116)
Resolves forgejo/forgejo#8754 Add the breadcrumb path that already exists when browsing directories to the commit history of files/directories. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12116 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
jvoisin
|
cc60e3d693 |
fix(oauth): only accept refresh tokens as refresh tokens (#12291)
`handleRefreshToken` never checked `token.Type == TypeRefreshToken`. When `InvalidateRefreshTokens` is disabled, an access token could be submitted as a `refresh_token` and exchanged for a new token pair. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes (can be removed for JavaScript changes) - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Co-authored-by: jvoisin <julien.voisin@dustri.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12291 Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
065a3a23f4 |
chore: extend length of integration test's logUnexpectedResponse (#12348)
I've observed intermittent failures in [`TestAPIAuthWithAuthorizedIntegration`](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/156485/jobs/8/attempt/1#jobstep-5-1950): ``` auth_authorized_integration_test.go:70: Error Trace: /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/integration_test.go:657 /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/auth_authorized_integration_test.go:70 /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/auth_authorized_integration_test.go:117 Error: Not equal: expected: 200 actual : 401 Test: TestAPIAuthWithAuthorizedIntegration/authorization_reducer/specific_repo_access_token Messages: Request: GET /api/v1/repos/user2/repo1/compare/master...master auth_authorized_integration_test.go:70: Response length: 1801 ``` I *suspect* that the cause is time-related errors in the Authorized Integration JWT, but I can't validate this because I can't reproduce the issue in local testing, and the response isn't displayed, and is just "Response length: 1801". This PR increases the size of responses that the integration tests' `logUnexpectedResponse` will output. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12348 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Zachary Spector
|
25e7a0b91b |
feat: support simple JSON API for PyPI package registry (#12095)
This PR extends Forĝejo's PyPI package index to support [the simple JSON repository API](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/simple-repository-api/#json-serialization). Since the existing implementation was for the HTML serialization of the same simple API, no new endpoint has been added. Instead, Forĝejo chooses between serialization schemes based on the "Accept" header in the request. This, together with CORS, will make Forĝejo compatible with [micropip](https://github.com/pyodide/micropip). ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes (can be removed for JavaScript changes) - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. *The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.* The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead. <!--start release-notes-assistant--> ## Release notes <!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo--> - Features - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12095): <!--number 12095 --><!--line 0 --><!--description SG9zdGVkIFB5UEkgcGFja2FnZXMgbWF5IGJlIGFjY2Vzc2VkIHZpYSB0aGUgW3NpbXBsZSBKU09OIEFQSV0oaHR0cHM6Ly9wYWNrYWdpbmcucHl0aG9uLm9yZy9lbi9sYXRlc3Qvc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbnMvc2ltcGxlLXJlcG9zaXRvcnktYXBpLyNqc29uLXNlcmlhbGl6YXRpb24pIGluIGFkZGl0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBzaW1wbGUgSFRNTCBBUEkgYWxyZWFkeSBhdmFpbGFibGUu-->Hosted PyPI packages may be accessed via the [simple JSON API](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/simple-repository-api/#json-serialization) in addition to the simple HTML API already available.<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12095 Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
be3fe4ff60 |
feat: allow Authorized Integrations to authenticate to Forgejo's package registries (#12310)
Enables and tests the usage of Authorized Integrations to access the package registries. Specific testing includes: - Container registry -- automated testing and manual testing - Generic registry, w/ detailed authorization tests -- automated testing - Conan registry -- automated testing (uses an "authenticate" endpoint that required updates) - npm registry -- manual testing with a Forgejo Action publishing packages For the container & conan registeries, where the client uses an authentication endpoint to request a temporary access token, the expiry of the temporary access token is restricted to the expiry of the authorized integration's JWT for the authorized integration in order to prevent an escalation of privileges. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12310 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
733a390ecd |
fix: verify PR author has write access to head to support allow maintainers edit (#12292)
When a pull request is opened, the author is able to mark that pull request to "Allow edits from maintainers", which grants the maintainers of the pull request's repo access to edit the pull request branch contents. It is possible to create a pull request where the pull request author does not have the ability to edit the pull request branch. Due to a missing security check for this case, maintainers of the pull request repo would be granted the ability to edit the pull request branch, even if the author of the pull request did not have that ability. By exploiting this missing security check, a user can edit any branch in a repository if they're able to fork that repository. The issue is being fixed by restricting the scope of "Allow edits from maintainers" to only grant that access if the pull request author also had access to edit the branch. Thanks to Arvin Shivram of Brutecat Security for discovering and responsibly disclosing the vulnerability. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12292 Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Gabor Pihaj
|
9977df96d5 |
fix: "Follow symlink" to work with arbitrary links (#12246)
This change introduces a Path method on the TreeEntry struct, that collects the path by moving upwards in the tree. The existing FollowSymlink(s) methods interface has been changed, the previously returned string has been removed, as after the fix it wasn't used anywhere. Fixes: #9931 Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12246 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Gabor Pihaj
|
73b30acbd0 |
feat: replace repo based server-side hooks with centralised hooks (#10397)
This PR is replacing repository based hooks hooks with centralised files, this way the files don't need to be copied into every repository, only one line of config need to be added in the repository. Closes: #3523 Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10397 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
900306e65a |
feat: add repo-specific & public-only authz reducers to authorized integrations (#12267)
Built on #12266; one commit added. Adds the ability to reduce the authorization scope of an authorized integration to public-only resources and repo-specific resources. Backend only -- no frontend created yet. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12267 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
c9d8682f90 |
test: add API integration testing for authorized integration authentication (#12266)
Built on #12261; one commit added. Adds an integration test verifying that access to the API can be authenticated by an authorized integration. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12266 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Henry Catalini Smith
|
cb1cb2c0af |
Improve repo file list table semantics for screen readers (second attempt) (#12232)
Unintentionally fixes forgejo/forgejo#11812 per tip https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12232#issuecomment-13580345 --- This is a second attempt to fix https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116. The [first attempt](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11846) introduced a [regression](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12082) and needed to be [reverted](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12088). What's different about this attempt is that several days of extra work have been invested in amending the CSS to ensure that no visual changes slip through as a side-effect of the structural changes to the HTML. This was surprisingly challenging, and I documented much of the journey in https://codeberg.org/henrycatalinismith/forgejo/issues/1. In summary, the existing version of the "latest commit" row leans heavily on global styles that are universally applied to all `thead` elements inside `table` elements with the `ui` and `table` classes. The nature of the structural HTML changes necessary to fix the accessibility bug (this row can't be inside `thead`) is such that those universal styles no longer apply to this element and must be duplicated into new element-specific styles. Similarly, existing styles applying to non-`thead` table content has unwanted effects on this element once it moves into the `tbody` which needed to be counteracted. The original PR already lays out the accessibility impact of this pull request in a good amount of details and so instead I'm going to use the space here to focus on comparing the visuals in the `forgejo` branch with those in this PR. There follow a few pretty boring identical before & after screenshots that are pixel-for-pixel identical with each other. I don't think you'll be able to spot any bugs by glancing at these and am more sharing them to provide an insight into where my attention has been during testing: the 380px wide mobile viewport, a larger desktop viewport, and the "commit message too long to fit in the available space" case. If you know of other troublesome cases for this code that aren't covered by what you see in these images then that could be a good thing to explore here. Before | After -|-  |   |  Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12232 Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
ef5479af71 |
refactor: split "basic" and "oauth2" authentication impl into smaller single-purpose components (#12236)
Forgejo's `basic` and `oauth2` authentication methods perform five distinct types of authentication:
- Username and password authentication
- Personal access tokens
- OAuth2 access tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ forgejo.token }}` -- task-based static tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ env.ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN }}` JWT, which is the authentication method used for `upload-artifact` (mirroring GitHub's implementation)
`basic` and `oauth2` both supported almost all of these methods, resulting in quite a bit of code duplication between them. This PR splits personal access tokens into `access_token.go`, Action's task-based tokens into `action_task_token.go`, and Action's JWT tokens into `action_runtime_token.go`.
**Note:** There is one peculiar side-effect that is worth discussing. Previously, `Authorization: Basic ...` was handled by one complex code path in basic.go, and `Authorization: Bearer ...` was handled by another in oauth2.go, and if authorization failed and a 401 was returned, a single error message would be returned to the user. Now, as multiple authorization methods may look at `Authorization: Basic ...` and provide their own reason why authorization didn't work, a 401 response has multiple reasons for a lack of authorization listed:
```
401 Unauthorized
...
failure to authenticate with oauth2 access token: not a JWT
Basic authorization is not allowed while having security keys enrolled
access token does not exist [sha: notpassword]
task with token "notpassword": resource does not exist
```
A couple tests have been adapted to check that the result contains their expected response, rather than is equal-to or prefixed-with their expected result. This is caused by the "auth group" joining together any "invalid credentials" errors, and, to a certain extent it is useful to understand why the authorization request failed. But it's a bit obscure as well.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on integration testing for regression checks.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12236
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
|
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
9f7533c1f1 |
refactor: clarify four different outputs that authentication methods provide (#12231)
#12202 began a refactor of Forgejo's authentication implementations by providing structured data on an authentication success. However, error cases were maintained as-is in that refactor, leaving a complex situation: what does returning an error from an authentication method mean?; does it mean that the authentication failed, or that a server error occurred? Can another authentication still be tried? This PR changes authentication methods so that they can return one of four things: - `AuthenticationSuccess` with an authentication result. - `AuthenticationNotAttempted` which indicates that no credentials relevant for this authentication method were presented. If every method returned `AuthenticationNotAttempted`, then you would have an unauthenticated access. - `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential` which indicates that credentials were present and failed validation -- a situation indicating a `401 Unauthorized`. - `AuthenticationError` which indicates that an internal server error occurred and failed authentication -- indicating a `500 Internal Server Error`. This paves the way for one more refactor coming next: `basic.go` and `oauth2.go` perform 3-4 different authentications each (access tokens, oauth JWTs, actions tokens, actions JWTs, and username/password). With the capability to return these more precise responses, these authentication methods can be split up into separate logic that isn't intertwined together. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - Relying on existing test suite, with changes for any compile errors -- the next refactor will simplify the auth methods so that they can be unit tested easily. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12231 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
Robert Wolff
|
7a86a870c6 |
fix: compare branches with names diff or patch (#12227)
Closes: Codeberg/Community#2538 Regression of: !5385 Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12227 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
1ddd5faa5c |
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface. Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004). ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
ShellWen
|
a85c527709 |
feat(api): add REST API endpoints for Actions artifacts (#12140)
## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Tests for JavaScript changes (not applicable — Go-only change) ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. ## Summary Add public REST API endpoints under `/api/v1/` for listing, inspecting, downloading, and deleting Actions artifacts. Previously, artifacts could only be accessed through the web UI or the internal runner API. ### New endpoints | Method | Path | Description | |--------|------|-------------| | `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts` | List all artifacts for a repository | | `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/artifacts` | List artifacts for a workflow run | | `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Get artifact metadata | | `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip` | Download artifact as zip | | `DELETE` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Delete an artifact | - List endpoints support `page`, `limit`, and `name` query parameters - Both v1-v3 (multi-file, zip on-the-fly) and v4 (single zip) artifact backends are supported - Expired artifacts are listed with `expired: true` but cannot be downloaded - Delete requires write permission; all other endpoints require read permission Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12140 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com> Co-committed-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com> |
||
|
Gusted
|
46d890c8e1 |
fix: always include files set to be detectable for language stats (#11685)
- The documentation has the correct behavior about `linguist-detectable`: In cases where a file should be considered for language statistics, regardless of its category, the linguist-detectable attribute can be used. - This patch follows that behavior by not skipping the file even if some heuristic would've said to skip the file. - Document the conditions in more natural language. - Resolves forgejo/forgejo#11248 Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11685 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz> Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz> |
||
Alec Walsh
|
83459905d1 |
Exclude SSH certificate principals from output when viewing user's SSH keys (#12079)
Fixes #11590 When viewing a user's SSH keys, SSH principals are now excluded from the output. This would previously either result in a panic in [OmitEmail]( |
||
Dominik Zyla
|
6236a4cc99 |
feat: allow for getting 2fa enabled users via /api/v1/admin/users (#12091)
Allow for filtering users with 2fa enabled as admin. So that it is easy to audit users' settings compliance with iso27001, etc. Resolves #11800 Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12091 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-committed-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
RahulGautamSingh
|
39f677c0db |
feat(api): add base and head query filters to list pull requests endpoint (#12104)
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/6919 Add `base` and `head` filter options to the `repoListPullRequests` API operation. Co-authored-by: Rahul Gautam Singh <rere0095@Rahuls-MacBook-Air.local> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12104 Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμίλια Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: RahulGautamSingh <rahultesnik@gmail.com> Co-committed-by: RahulGautamSingh <rahultesnik@gmail.com> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
a4b575fd75 |
fix: make /repos/search?uid=-2 return zero results, no repos with that owner (#12144)
API calls to `.../api/v1/repos/search?uid=-2&archived=false` currently do not apply the filter `uid` because of the negative value. This can occur when APIs are interacting with `${{ forgejo.token }}` and believe they're operating as the Forgejo Actions user, which has UID -2.
In combination with the security checks that occur in the `/repos/search` API to validate that repositories accessed are visible to the user, this can result in 500 error responses when a more correct expectation would be to receive no repositories:
|
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
8cb776dcac |
chore: fix TestMirrorPull on older git (2.34.1) installation (#12134)
`TestMirrorPull` is currently failing when run on git 2.34.1 in the `testing-integration.yml` workflow: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-integration/forgejo/actions/runs/16661/jobs/1/attempt/1#jobstep-5-2539 Began to fail after #11909 when additional checks on pull mirror configuration was added. This PR addresses the issue and has been manually tested against the same git version: ``` $ git --version git version 2.34.1 $ make test-sqlite#TestMirrorPull 2>&1 ... === TestMirrorPull/migrate_from_repo_config_credentials (tests/integration/mirror_pull_test.go:238) PASS ``` ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12134 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
179fbdb04e |
fix: when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to viewed base & head, not just viewed head (#12107)
While developing tests for #12092, I came across a case where making a comment on a single-commit doesn't include the correct diff for the comment. This is because code comment placement occurs between the PR's base and the commit being viewed, but, that diff could be different from the commit's parent to the commit, which is what is being viewed on a single-commit diff. Similar to #12055, this PR changes code comments to be more precise in their diff generation by providing the backend with both the base commit (`before_commit_id`) and head commit (`after_commit_id`) currently being viewed. As a result, the diffs attached to comments should exactly match the diffs being viewed by the user when the comment was placed. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12107 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
famfo
|
5f432e32c8 |
chore(federation): re-enable nilnil lint (#11253)
First round of patches to re-enable some lints from my side. This PR also refactors the general key fetching code quite a bit due to the way it currently worked with relying on some values being nil sometimes. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11253 Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz> Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
a797a71dea |
fix: display code comments on removed lines-of-code to correct locations in PR view (#12092)
With the completion of #12015, when a comment is left on a changed line in a pull request, we track the comment against the line of code with `git blame` and then identify where it currently is in any diff with `git blame --reverse`. However, this strategy only works for the *modified* lines of code -- eg. the `+...` in diffs, and not the `-...` in diffs. The reason is that `git blame --reverse` can't track a line of code's location past the commit that it was removed in. To permit comments that are left on lines of code that are removed to appear correctly in the UI, a separate approach is required for those comments. This PR performs two major changes, which have been complex to figure out, but are reasonably easy to understand: - When a comment is placed on a removed line in a PR, perform a `git blame --reverse` from the PR's base to the currently viewed commit, and use this information to record in the comment: - the **last commit that the line of code existed in** (stored in the `commit_sha` field) - the **line of code as of that commit** (stored in the `line` field, negative, to indicate that the comment is on a removal). - the **patch** where the comment was placed (stored in the field `patch`); existing functionality unchanged in this PR - When viewing any diff in the PR, for each comment on a removal, perform a diff from the `commit_sha` (last commit that the line of code existed in) to the current commit being viewed, and verify that within that diff the left-hand-side line removal still exists at the same line of code in the diff, by comparing the current diff with the stored patch. - If present, place the commit in the UI at the line number. - If the line of code no longer exists in the diff at that point (for example, it was removed, commented upon, and then re-added in a later commit), then the comment is considered outdated and isn't displayed. The algorithm used for marking a comment as "outdated" is also updated to use this approach. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12092 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Henry Catalini Smith
|
86898a7d05 |
Revert "Improve repo file list table semantics for screen readers (#11846)" (#12088)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12082 by reverting commit
|
||
|
famfo
|
fd28fd896b |
feat: Follow remote users; feed tab (#10380)
This is hopefully the final part of PR #4767, rebased and squashed. More thorough federation tests are at https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1276 but the mock has been extended to hopefully cover a good chunk as well. Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu> Co-authored-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de> Co-authored-by: zam <mirco.zachmann@meissa.de> Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10380 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz> Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
ca00f99c3f |
fix: when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit (#12055)
When performing `git blame` to identify the commit that a line of code came from, limit the blame to the commit that is currently being viewed in the UI. Before this change, the blame always occurred on the current head of the PR, causing these problems: - When you click ➕ to load the comment form, the form that is dynamically loaded would have it's commit field pulled from the current PR head. That may not actually reflect the code that you were viewing at the time you authored the comment -- it could be a newer commit that occurred by the author while you were reviewing. - When viewing a specific commit within a PR and leaving a comment, the blame would occur from the head -- if the file was changed in a later commit and the line-of-code moved up or down, the comment would be misplaced. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. <!--start release-notes-assistant--> ## Release notes <!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055): <!--number 12055 --><!--line 0 --><!--description d2hlbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgaW4gUFJzLCBtYWtlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0aXZlIHRvIHRoZSB2aXNpYmxlIGNvZGUncyBjb21taXQ=-->when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
40aa3a5c7d |
fix: mark code comments as Outdated based upon line-of-code existence in current PR commit (#12054)
Currently when a commit is pushed to a branch, code comments are marked as Outdated if a `git blame` on the current commit's code returns the same commit as the `git blame` did when the comment was originally created. This implementation doesn't make sense: - It doesn't handle the case correctly where the same line of code exists unaltered in the new commit, but it has been relocated (eg. new lines entered or removed above the location). - It falsely keeps the commit valid if the line of code that the comment was made upon has been removed, if, coincidentally, the line of code that now exists at the commit came from the same source commit. For example, if the line of code that the comment was on was deleted, but the next line of code came from the same commit, the comment will be kept as valid. This PR uses the logic introduced in #12015, using a `git blame --reverse` -- the commit & line that was identified as having the comment on it is reversed, and if it still exists in the new head, then the comment is considered valid. Otherwise it is marked as outdated. Automated tests are added primarily by revising the automated tests in #12015 -- a comment in an existing test case was marked as outdated, even though it shouldn't have been. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. <!--start release-notes-assistant--> ## Release notes <!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12054): <!--number 12054 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bWFyayBjb2RlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFzIE91dGRhdGVkIGJhc2VkIHVwb24gbGluZS1vZi1jb2RlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBpbiBjdXJyZW50IFBSIGNvbW1pdA==-->mark code comments as Outdated based upon line-of-code existence in current PR commit<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12054 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
9fe0cbee02 |
fix: relocate PR review comments using git blame --reverse, improving comment placement (#12015)
When a review comment is placed on a PR in Forgejo, Forgejo performs a `git blame` to identify which commit originated the line, and records that commit and line number in the comment's database record. Later when the review is viewed, Forgejo currently makes no effort to place that comment in the correct *current* location, which may vary -- for example, if a PR had two commits and the comment was made on a line in the first commit, but the second commit changes line numbers in that file, the comment will appear in the incorrect location. This PR adds the usage of `git blame --reverse` to calculate the correct location to display the comment in the current view (whether reviewing the PR commit-by-commit, or "Files changed"). It certainly does not fix all problems with comment placement (see comments). Another major addition in this PR is a test harness for making relatively complex PRs and reviewing the diffs on the per-commit view and PR-diff views. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. <!--start release-notes-assistant--> ## Release notes <!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015): <!--number 12015 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVsb2NhdGUgUFIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzIHVzaW5nIGBnaXQgYmxhbWUgLS1yZXZlcnNlYCwgaW1wcm92aW5nIGNvbW1lbnQgcGxhY2VtZW50-->relocate PR review comments using `git blame --reverse`, improving comment placement<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
Florian Pallas
|
4e6a782a89 |
feat: add admin views for federation configuration, hosts and users (#11115)
Fixes #9282 Adds a new admin panel category for federation related administration. Includes views for: - Instance Federation Configuration - List of Federation Hosts - (Per-Instance) List of Federated Users Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11115 Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com> Co-committed-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com> |
||
|
Andreas Ahlenstorf
|
703256e50e |
Revert "fix: add challenge for HTTP Basic Authentication to container registry" (#12058)
This reverts commit 79ed45d39a05533f55a4694cd62176eaa99dae16. Testing has shown that it breaks Docker 26 which is the version included in Debian Trixie. It was originally introduced with https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11678. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12058 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch> Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
bdd2a1def7 |
fix: prevent actions workflows from generating OIDC tokens if not authorized in workflow (#12030)
When using Forgejo's `enable-openid-connect: true`, a URL is generated into the actions under `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` that can be used to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources authenticated as the action executing in this server on this repo. However, the endpoint of that url (`.../idtoken`) had unintentionally missed a `return` on an internal server error, and was missing a check that the action actually had `enable-openid-connect: true` on it. As a result, it was possible to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources from an action that wasn't expected to be generating JWTs. In terms of real-world vulnerability, the most likely risk is that the JWT could be generated from a forked pull request. By not using the `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` and instead going directly to the `.../idtoken` endpoint, and parsing a generated JWT response that will be mixed with an error response, it's possible to retrieve a JWT in a forked pull request. It would require a slight misconfiguration on a third-party system to allow that JWT access, but it's a plausible risk. As this is a feature in Forgejo 15 that hasn't been released, it will be fixed in-public. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes (can be removed for JavaScript changes) - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. - Feature is not yet released. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12030 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Henry Catalini Smith
|
dd968f147d |
Improve repo file list table semantics for screen readers (#11846)
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116 To understand the impact of this you really need to listen to the before and after screen recordings attached. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116 is a really great bug report, and I was surprised by how disorienting this actually was when testing manually compared to my expectation after reading the issue. This is an impactful improvement! This is my first time adding new translation strings. Excited to learn more about that if I've guessed wrong about how to do it. To summarise, what we're doing here is as follows. 1. Address the core issue by changing the existing `<th>` elements to `<td>` so that screen readers stop semantically associating them with each row and reading them out for every table cell. 2. Replace them with real `<th>` elements that communicate the true semantic role of each column. 3. Add a `<caption>`. This serves a dual purpose: it gives the table an accessible name which improves the navigability of the page, and it gives us a place to explain to the user that the first row of the table is a little bit different because it's the latest commit rather than a file in the repo. 4. Visually hide the new caption and headings so that only screen reader users get them. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for JavaScript changes - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)). ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. *The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.* The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11846 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se> Co-committed-by: Henry Catalini Smith <henry@catalinismith.se> |
||
elbaro
|
f18873f83b |
feat: add /actions/runs/{id}/jobs (#11915)
This PR is a minimal implementation to add `/actions/runs/{id}/jobs` (#11859).
This endpoint is also required by `/actions/jobs/{id}/logs`.
The pagination, filtering, custom sorting, more response fields are left to future work.
## Usage
```
curl -X 'GET' \
'https://hostname/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{id}/jobs' \
-H 'accept: application/json'
```
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Co-authored-by: elbaro <elbaro@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11915
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: elbaro <elbaro@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: elbaro <elbaro@noreply.codeberg.org>
|
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
9abc1b0144 |
refactor: reduce code duplication when accessing DefaultMaxInSize (#11999)
`DefaultMaxInSize` is an internal parameter for limiting the size of `field IN (...)` clauses in DB queries, which is a reasonable thing to do -- in addition to the errors noted when [originally introduced](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/4594), there are technical limits that apply to each of PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQLite which would prevent an unbounded size for a query like this. However: the size is incredibly small at 50, and, the implementation of `DefaultMaxInSize` is really wasteful with copy-and-paste coding. This PR: - introduces `GetByIDs` which fetches a `map[int64]*Model` from the database for an array of ID values, while respecting `IN` clause size limits - introduces `GetByFieldIn` which fetches a `map[int64][]*Model` from the database for an array of field values, while respecting `IN` clause size limits - uses `slices.Chunk` for other locations where queries are too complex for these implementations - bumps the `DefaultMaxInSize` parameter from 50 to 500, a conservative increase well under known limits, but 10x the current value: - PostgreSQL supports up to 1GB query text size with 65,535 parameters, but I've experienced performance degradation at high value counts - MySQL supports 64MB query text size without known limits of parameter count - SQLite supports 32,766 parameters in a query ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - Refactored functions are assumed to be covered by existing tests to some extent; that assumption is probably wrong but the changes here are relatively easily reviewed for correctness as well. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11999 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Andreas Ahlenstorf
|
df86b495dc |
feat: support timezone in scheduled workflows (#11851)
GitHub recently added the ability to [specify a time zone for scheduled workflows](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/workflow-syntax#onschedule), thereby making it possible to run scheduled workflows at a certain local time, no matter whether daylight saving time (DST) is currently active or not. Example copied from GitHub's documentation: ```yaml on: schedule: - cron: '30 5 * * 1-5' timezone: "America/New_York" ``` The workflow would run at 05:30 each morning in the America/New_York timezone every Monday through Friday. `timezone` accepts IANA time zone names. If `timezone` is absent, `Etc/UTC` is used. GitHub runs workflows that were scheduled during DST jumps forward, for example, between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock, directly after the clock jumped forward. In this case, that would be 3 o'clock. Forgejo already supports time zones by prepending cron schedules with `TZ=<zone-id>` or `CRON_TZ=<zone-id>`: ```yaml on: schedule: - cron: 'CRON_TZ=America/New_York 30 5 * * 1-5' ``` However, that capability is not documented. Workflows that are scheduled to run during DST changes are skipped when the clock jumps forward and run twice when it jumps backward. This two-part PR adds support for `timezone` to improve compatibility with GitHub. `TZ` and `CRON_TZ` continue working. When both `timezone` and `TZ` or `CRON_TZ` are present, `timezone` takes precedence. When neither `timezone` nor `TZ` nor `CRON_TZ` are present, `Etc/UTC` is used as before. Because `TZ` and `CRON_TZ` were already supported by Forgejo before GitHub introduced `timezone`, `timezone` behaves during DST changes as previous versions of Forgejo, thereby deviating from GitHub. That means that workflows that are scheduled to run during DST changes are skipped when the clock jumps forward. And they run twice when it jumps backwards. However, it is generally recommended not to schedule workflows during the time of day when DST changes occur. This part of the PR integrates the [workflow validation and parsing of the `timezone` field](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1454) supplied by Forgejo Runner. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes (can be removed for JavaScript changes) - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Tests for JavaScript changes (can be removed for Go changes) - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)). ### Documentation - [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls/1853 - [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. *The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.* The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead. <!--start release-notes-assistant--> ## Release notes <!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo--> - Features - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11851): <!--number 11851 --><!--line 0 --><!--description c3VwcG9ydCBgdGltZXpvbmVgIGluIHNjaGVkdWxlZCB3b3JrZmxvd3M=-->support `timezone` in scheduled workflows<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Co-authored-by: Renovate Bot <bot@kriese.eu> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11851 Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch> Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
6a99b6b0c1 |
fix: store pull mirror creds encrypted with keying (#11909)
Fixes #9629. New pull mirrors have credentials stored encrypted in the database, the same as push mirrors, rather than in the repository's `config` file. `git fetch` on the pull mirror is updated to use the credential store. Pull mirrors will have their credentials migrated to the encrypted storage in the database as they're synced or otherwise accessed via the web UI. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org). ### Tests for Go changes - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [x] `make pr-go` before pushing ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. ### Release notes - [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change. - [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11909 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |