mirrors/forgejo
2
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo.git synced 2026-06-22 10:02:15 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
24,818 commits 34 branches 288 tags 338 MiB
Commit graph

4,805 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Andreas Ahlenstorf
92f1b6fdd2 test: fix test that was supposed to test DST behaviour but did not (#12007) 
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11851 introduced tests that verify the scheduling of Forgejo Actions workflows during daylight saving time (DST) changes. Unfortunately, one test didn't test what it was supposed to because it used a reference time in UTC that was already after the clock change has happened.

This change also adds tests that verify that `NewActionScheduleSpec()` respects time zones when calculating the initial execution time of a scheduled workflow.

## 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

### 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

- [ ] 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.

*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/12007
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-04-07 05:03:26 +02:00
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>
 2026-04-05 22:03:45 +02:00
Mathieu Fenniak
e14e220651 perf: bulk load resolvers & reactions on pull request comments (#11988) 
Optimize loading pull request review comments, which currently perform separate database queries for each comment in order to load the resolver of the comment, and the reactions on that comment, and the users on each reaction of the comments.

I stumbled across this ugly code, which enticed me to look into this:

80d840c128/routers/web/repo/pull.go (L1107-L1120)

It appeared to load the attachments from each comment on the pull request review page in separate database queries.  It turned out to be a noop, as the attachments are already loaded in bulk:

80d840c128/models/issues/comment_code.go (L120-L122)

but the `findCodeComments` method loads the "resolver doer" and the reactions one-by-one for each comment.  So I fixed that instead, and removed the ineffective deeply nested for loop.

## 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

- [ ] 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/11988
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-04-05 14:37:09 +02:00
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>
 2026-04-04 18:23:06 +02:00
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>
 2026-04-04 13:53:22 +02:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
ce27a5993c fix: superfluous increment of ActionTask attempt breaks job view (#11956) 
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11750 missed a place where the attempt number is incremented independently. This caused the job view to break when running a reusable workflow with workflow expansion.

## 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

### 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

- [ ] 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.

*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/11956
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-04-03 16:05:09 +02:00
Gusted
77dbc35138 chore: add modernizer linter (#11936) 
- Go has a suite of small linters that helps with modernizing Go code by using newer functions and catching small mistakes, https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis/passes/modernize.
- Enable this linter in golangci-lint.
- There's also [`go fix`](https://go.dev/blog/gofix), which is not yet released as a linter in golangci-lint: https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/pull/6385

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11936
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
 2026-04-02 03:29:37 +02:00
Mathieu Fenniak
8387974e2e ci: prevent usage of live application models & services in migrations (#11872) 
Prevent access to "current" application models and services from migrations via `golangci` config:

eg:
```
models/forgejo_migrations/v14a_ap-change-fedi-handle-structure.go:18:2: import 'forgejo.org/models/user' is not allowed from list 'migration-isolation': Migrations must not import application models. Application models will be the most recent schema for Forgejo, while migrations will be operating against the database schema that existed when they were authored. (depguard)
	user_model "forgejo.org/models/user"
	^
models/forgejo_migrations/v14a_ap-change-fedi-handle-structure.go:21:2: import 'forgejo.org/services/user' is not allowed from list 'migration-isolation': Migrations must not import application services. Application services will reference application models which will use the most recent schema for Forgejo, while migrations will be operating against the database schema that existed when they were authored. (depguard)
	user_service "forgejo.org/services/user"
```

Fixes an existing migration issue where it isn't possible to add a new column to the `User` table ([test errors that occur](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/148633/jobs/10/attempt/1#jobstep-5-323)), but also guarantees that future migrations don't stumble into the same issue by inadvertently referencing live application code from historical migrations.

Originally identified and draft fix by @codecat w/ proposed fix in #11870.

## 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.

Co-authored-by: Melissa Geels <melissa@nimble.tools>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11872
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-31 02:56:43 +02:00
Mathieu Fenniak
e823e8cd69 fix: duplicate key violates unique constraint in concurrent debian package uploads (#11776) 
Fixes #11438.

Whenever a "unique constraint violation" error is encountered by package mutation, detect if a `xorm.ErrUniqueConstraintViolation` error occurs.  If it does, retry the entire transaction.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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...
  - [ ] `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/11776
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-26 21:50:25 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
5e1c13f50e feat: allow runners to request a particular job (#11676) 
Forgejo Runner can optionally ask for a particular job. Example: `forgejo-runner one-job --handle 9d52c7d8-aebe-426b-b015-dd453aacaada`. This change adds the necessary job filtering to Forgejo.

See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/76 for the motivation and design considerations.

PR for the extension of the runner protocol: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/actions-proto/pulls/18

Related change in Forgejo Runner with usage example: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1443

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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.

<!--start release-notes-assistant-->

## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
  - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11676): <!--number 11676 --><!--line 0 --><!--description YWxsb3cgcnVubmVycyB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGEgcGFydGljdWxhciBqb2I=-->allow runners to request a particular job<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11676
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-25 17:27:05 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
b01278e534 feat: show workflow name for scheduled runs (#11770) 
Previously, a scheduled run would appear like a run triggered by a push. That could be confusing, especially if a scheduled run was unrelated to that particular commit. Now, either the workflow's name (taken from the field `name:`) is displayed or the path to workflow file, matching the behaviour of `workflow_dispatch`.

As a side-effect, the description of all run types were improved. They are no longer pieced together from individual translations. `workflow_dispatch` also no longer misattributes commits to the user that triggered the workflow.

Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11688.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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/11770
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-24 01:27:32 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
35b872f383 feat(ui): create repo-specific access tokens (#11696) 
Adds a user interface for creating repo-specific access tokens (#11311).  When the new option "Specific repositories" is selected, a search option appears.  Each repository in the search result has an "Add" button to include it on the access token, and once included, a repository can be removed with the "Remove" button.  This is a JS-free form.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

### Tests for JavaScript changes

- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
  - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
  - [x] 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)).
    - Technically there are no "JavaScript changes" in this PR, but e2e tests were added for browser interaction testing.

### Documentation

- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
    - TODO: planning to create documentation in https://forgejo.org/docs/next/user/token-scope/; there is none for public only tokens but I think this seems like a good place to add both.
- [ ] 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/11696
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-23 15:29:08 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
bdbd0b5622 feat: allow renaming and replacing secrets (#11732) 
So far, Forgejo's UI only allowed to create Forgejo Actions secrets. But renaming or replacing their value wasn't possible. With this change, users can do both. The existing secret value is never revealed for security reasons.

Additionally, a confusing behaviour is removed. If a user created a new secret whose name matched an existing secret, the existing secret was silently updated. That does no longer happen. The new secret is rejected instead.

Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/5707.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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/11732
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-23 03:30:02 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
1127aca2d2 fix: set attempt number of action run jobs eagerly (#11750) 
A Forgejo Action job should be uniquely identifiable by its `ID` and `Attempt` number. Each time a particular job is (re-)run, its `Attempt` number is incremented while its `ID` remains static. Unfortunately, `Attempt` is not incremented when the (re-)run is triggered, but right when Forgejo Runner requests the job. That makes identifying a particular run much harder, because the attempt number is changed in the midst of an attempt. Furthermore, it requires taking the job's `Status` into account. This is fixed by setting the correct attempt number right when a (re-)run is triggered. That means that the `Attempt` number remains static for the duration of a single attempt.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

### 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.
- [ ] 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.

*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/11750
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-20 17:23:09 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
28e0af25b4 perf: remove redundant & incorrect filters on 'SearchRepoOptions.OwnerID' (#11729) 
Improves the performance of the `/repo/search?uid=N` API call, which is used on the user's dashboard to load a repo list.  More detailed notes are in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11702.

Removes a redundant query condition (that a user was part of a team in an organization which could see a repo), and a condition that seems incorrect (that a repo could be seen just by being public within a private org, which is incorrect because that doesn't mean the user is a collaborator on the repo).

Covered by over 30 test cases in `repo_list_test.go` which did not fail from these changes.  Mutation testing (removing the remaining "2." condition) verified that the codepath is covered as tests did fail.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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/11729
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-18 17:01:44 +01:00
Gusted
c1787d06e2 fix: add missing deleting beans for organizations (#11699) 
- Delete blocked users entries.
  - Organization cannot get blocked, it can block other people however.
- Delete following entries.
  - Organization cannot follow, it can be followed by users.
- Resolves forgejo/forgejo#11416

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11699
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
 2026-03-17 09:11:52 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
e9969afa6b feat: make it possible to search runners by UUID (#11671) 
Forgejo Runner [identifies runners by their UUID](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1380), not by their name. That means users should be able to find a runner in Forgejo not only using its name, but also using its UUID. With this change, when a user enters a (partial) UUID into the search bar on top of the list of runners, all matching runners will be found.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

### 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/11671
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-14 04:12:00 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
6ff4147688 refactor: replace WithAvailable with WithVisible when fetching runners (#11657) 
When fetching runners, the option `WithAvailable` can be enabled to fetch all runners that can be used by a repository, user, or organization, not only those that are owned by the respective repository, user, or organization. In the instance scope, `WithAvailable` has no meaning. You always get _all_ runners. This means it is impossible to only fetch runners that are owned by the instance, but no others.

This PR replaces `WithAvailable` with `WithVisible`. For repositories, users, and organizations, it has the same semantics as `WithAvailable`. For the instance scope, `WithVisible=true` equals today's default behaviour (i.e., return _all_ runners), whereas `WithVisible=false` is new and would only return the runners owned by the instance itself.

The advantage of `WithVisible` is that it has a consistent meaning across all scopes. This also lays the groundwork for the introduction of a `with-visible` (tentative name) flag in the HTTP API.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

- [ ] 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.

*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/11657
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-13 01:43:32 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
6e804c8b1b feat(ui): display repositories accessible by repo-specific access tokens (#11604) 
When an access token is repository specific, display the repositories that it can access when expanded in the UI (token **test** in this screenshot):

![image](/attachments/6d2d539c-7781-4a4f-ba90-a28b7c365c6c)

Default, collapsed view is unchanged:

![image](/attachments/a4f0a36d-2f2b-46af-8fa6-c8d445f707e4)

Bulk loading of repositories is refactored out of the access token API endpoint into a `BulkGetRepositoriesForAccessTokens` method that can be used in both this UI, and the original API location.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

- [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/11604
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-12 16:06:38 +01:00
Andreas Ahlenstorf
2963572845 feat: add form-based runner management (#11516) 
Forgejo Runner is deprecating the runner registration token. It is too powerful, requires tooling, and is unnecessary. As a consequence, users need new mechanisms for managing runners in Forgejo. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10677 added an HTTP API for runner registration. This PR adds the ability to manage runners using Forgejo's web interface.

Runners can be added, modified, and deleted. It is also possible to regenerate a runner's token. When a runner is added or a runner's token is regenerated, setup instructions are displayed. They explain how to alter Forgejo Runner's configuration file or how to launch `forgejo-runner daemon` (yet to be implemented). The existing details page has been overhauled and is now accessible to all users that are allowed to use a particular runner. The details page displays additional information that had to be removed from the list of runners due to space constraints. The task list is filtered. That means it only lists jobs of the respective repository, user, or organization.

The runner registration token has been marked as deprecated.

See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/88 for context and design considerations.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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.
  - [x] 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/11516
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
 2026-03-12 02:14:45 +01:00
limiting-factor
d2acd4f14c chore: split AddRepository and AddTeamMember to return the inserted value (#11342) 
Split [AddRepository][0] and [AddTeamMember][1] to functions that return the inserted value. These can be used by the F3 driver to obtain the ID of the TeamRepo and TeamUser rows inserted in the database.

Add test coverage for both functions and remove a duplicated test. Integration tests also already [make use of AddRepository and AddTeamMember][2] indirectly.

[0]: f8bee35e77/models/org_team.go (L26)
[1]: f8bee35e77/models/org_team.go (L359)
[2]: f8bee35e77/tests/integration/api_helper_for_declarative_test.go (L461-L483)

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11342
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Co-committed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
 2026-03-11 03:40:32 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
a012b8bf36 refactor: replace ActionRunnerToken.OwnerID & RepoID with optional.Option[int64] (#11601) 
Currently:
- In the database, `NULL` is used in `action_runner_token.owner_id` & `.repo_id` to represent an absent value, as required by the foreign key
- In the code, `0` is used in `ActionRunnerToken.OwnerID` and `.RepoID` to represent an absent value

This PR replaces the `int64` fields with `optional.Option[int64]` which allows a single data type to be used for both cases, and removes the usage of the value `0` as a placeholder.

This change has a limited scope -- although `ActionRunnerToken` uses `NULL` values in the database, the related table `ActionRunner` still uses zero-values for `OwnerID` and `RepoID`.  This means a lot of code interacting with both of these tables still uses `0` values, such as the UI.  The changes here were stopped at a reasonable point to avoid cascading into all places that use the `ActionRunner` table.  (I'll continue this work in the future to enable foreign keys on `ActionRunner`, but likely after #11516 is completed to avoid serious conflict resolution problems.)

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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.

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11601
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-10 03:19:16 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
f93d2cb261 ci: detect and prevent empty case statements in Go code (#11593) 
One of the security patches released 2026-03-09 [fixed a vulnerability](!11513 (commit d1c7b04d09)) caused by a misapplication of Go `case` statements, where the implementation would have been correct if Go `case` statements automatically fall through to the next case block, but they do not.  This PR adds a semgrep rule which detects any empty `case` statement and raises an error, in order to prevent this coding mistake in the future.

For example, code like this will now trigger a build error:
```go
	switch setting.Protocol {
	case setting.HTTPUnix:
	case setting.FCGI:
	case setting.FCGIUnix:
	default:
		defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://"
	}
```

Example error:
```
    cmd/web.go
   ❯❯❱ semgrep.config.forgejo-switch-empty-case
          switch has a case block with no content. This is treated as "break" by Go, but developers may
          confuse it for "fallthrough".  To fix this error, disambiguate by using "break" or
          "fallthrough".

          279┆ switch setting.Protocol {
          280┆ case setting.HTTPUnix:
          281┆ case setting.FCGI:
          282┆ case setting.FCGIUnix:
          283┆ default:
          284┆   defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://"
          285┆   if setting.HTTPAddr == "0.0.0.0" {
          286┆           defaultLocalURL += "localhost"
          287┆   } else {
          288┆           defaultLocalURL += setting.HTTPAddr
```

As described in the error output, this error can be fixed by explicitly listing `break` (the real Go behaviour, to do nothing in the block), or by listing `fallthrough` (if the intent was to fall through).

All existing code triggering this detection has been changed to `break` (or, rarely, irrelevant cases have been removed), which should maintain the same code functionality.  While performing this fixup, a light analysis was performed on each case and they *appeared* correct, but with ~65 cases I haven't gone into extreme depth.

Tests are present for the semgrep rule in `.semgrep/tests/go.go`.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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/11593
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-10 02:50:28 +01:00
Michael Kriese
e7d4ecadf3 feat: add more filters to actions run and tasks api (#11584) 
The new filters are especially useful for status monotoring like kuma to have more relevant results.

The wrong status check seems to be a regression of #6300

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

### 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.
- [ ] 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/11584
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
Co-committed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
 2026-03-10 01:20:00 +01:00
Gusted
3934e5fea3 chore: add comment for ap migration (#11144) 
When merging #9254 I didn't make the mental note that v14 is already out and the migration would now apply to v15. Document this mistake.

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11144
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
 2026-03-09 17:09:07 +01:00
Beowulf
6dbf72975d fix: Forgejo Security Patches, 2026-03-09 (#11513) 
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11513
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
 2026-03-09 05:54:05 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
d442f83a09 chore: support Option[T] as a type on database schema structs (#11553) 
Adds support for `optional.Option[T]` to be used on an xorm schema struct to represent nullable fields.  The `optional.None[T]()` value will be stored in the database as `NULL`.

```go
type OptionString struct {
	ID     int64 `xorm:"pk autoincr"`
	StringField optional.Option[string]
}
```

Before this change, it is possible to represent a nullable field in two reasonable ways: , or as a `sql.Null[T]` (eg. `StringField sql.Null[string]`).  The problems with these are:
- as a pointer (eg. `StringField *string`) -- but this introduces the risk of panics when `nil` values are dereferenced, and makes it difficult to use literals in structure creation (although `new()` in Go 1.26 would reduce this issue when Forgejo is upgraded to it)
- as a `sql.Null[T]` -- but this "leaks" references to the `database/sql` package for anything that interacts with Forgejo models, and it's API is awkward as nothing gates you into checking the `Valid` field before you access and use the `V` field

`optional.Option[T]` addresses these points and provides a single way to use an optional primitive type, with a safe check-before-access interface, which can be used consistently throughout model code and other application code.  Figuring out the best way to handle this became a blocker to me for [adding foreign keys to nullable fields](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/385#issuecomment-10218316) in database models, which is what drove me to implement this solution.

## Notes: Filtering on `Option[T]` Fields

It is supported and functional to perform queries with xorm beans with non-None `Option` values.  For example:
```go
cond := &OptionString{
	StringField: optional.Some("hello"),
}
err := db.GetEngine(t.Context()).Find(&arr, cond)
```
will generate a database query `WHERE string_field = 'hello'`, and correctly filter the records.

It is **not** supported to perform queries with `None` values, for two reasons:
- xorm cannot distinguish between an explicit `&OptionString{ StringField: optional.None[string]() }`, and `&OptionString{}`.  Both of them have the `StringField` field set to the zero-value of `Option[String]`.
- For this SQL query to be formatted correctly, it would require `WHERE string_field IS NOT NULL`, not `WHERE string_field = NULL`.  This is not how xorm generated bean-based queries.

This is similar to the risk that exists with any other field querying on its zero-value with xorm.  It's an unfortunate structural limitation of xorm, and can lead to developers believing database queries are performing filtering that they are not.

(perhaps we can mitigate this risk with semgrep or other automated tooling in the future)

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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.

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11553
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-08 03:36:32 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
2db6210f69 feat: read, create, & delete repo-specific access tokens via API (#11504) 
This PR is part of a series (#11311).

Adds support for reading and creating repo-secific access tokens through the API via the `GET /users/{username}/tokens`, `POST /users/{username}/tokens`, and `DELETE /users/{username}/tokens/{id}` APIs.

Validation rules are included to [restrict repo-specific access tokens to specific scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951).

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

### 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-->
- Features
  - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504): <!--number 11504 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVhZCwgY3JlYXRlLCAmIGRlbGV0ZSByZXBvLXNwZWNpZmljIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnMgdmlhIEFQSQ==-->read, create, & delete repo-specific access tokens via API<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-03-07 21:55:08 +01:00
limiting-factor
851356577c chore: do not leak global repository unit defaults (#11470) 
The [test disabling the issue unit][0] took care of [reseting the disabled units][1]. However, it overlooked that calling [`LoadUnitConfig`][2] also has a [side effect on `DefaultRepoUnits`][3]. It happens when [`validateDefaultRepoUnits` has a side effect][4] on the array backing the slice, when it is [not recreated][5]. As a result the issue unit is disabled for all tests that run after this one.

The subtle side effect is harmless because it only happens in tests, the `LoadUnitConfig` is otherwise only called once. For clarity `LoadUnitConfig` is modified to clone the unit array being validated so that the returned slice is never backed by the same array as the argument.

As the global variables used for repository units should be saved and restored as a whole, a dedicated test function (`SaveUnits`) is provided to be used by both integration tests and unit tests. The test of the unit model is refactored to be a blackbox test in order to avoid an import cycle.

[0]: cce5f868ce/tests/integration/repo_settings_test.go (L258)
[1]: cce5f868ce/tests/integration/repo_settings_test.go (L253)
[2]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L171)
[3]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L182)
[4]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L162)
[5]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L148)

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11470
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Co-committed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
 2026-03-07 02:03:22 +01:00
Gusted
4f464db8a7 chore: add unit tests 
Unit tests for model functions
 2026-03-06 11:21:07 -07:00
Gusted
837557166b fix: check owner when changing state of project 
It was sufficiently checked for the repostiory case, but for user/org
project it was not checked and you could change the state of any
project by there mere knowledge of a ID.
 2026-03-06 11:21:07 -07:00
Gusted
abdac1993a chore: add unit test 2026-03-06 11:21:07 -07:00
Gusted
ce0a376723 fix: check that attachments belong to correct resource 
It was possible to hijack attachments during update and create functions
to another owner as permissions to check they weren't already attached
to another resource and wasn't checked if it belonged to the repository
that was being operated on.
 2026-03-06 11:21:07 -07:00
Oliver Eikemeier
757eb2f267 chore: handle error types consistently (#9873) 
Some error types are used inconsistently or wrong:

- `forgejo.org/modules/git.ErrNotExist` is meant to be a value error: <[modules/git/error.go#L23](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/tag/v13.0.2/modules/git/error.go#L23)>

- `forgejo.org/models/repo.ErrRepoNotExist` is meant to be a value error: <[models/repo/repo.go#L750](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/tag/v13.0.2/models/repo/repo.go#L750)>

- `errors.Is(logErr, &net.OpError{})` is always `false`: <[services/context/context_response.go#L188](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/tag/v13.0.2/services/context/context_response.go#L188)>

- `forgejo.org/models/issues.ErrIssueContentHistoryNotExist` is used inconsistently: <[models/issues/content_history.go#L211](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/tag/v13.0.2/models/issues/content_history.go#L211)>
Decided to use a value, since the structure is small and to be in line with the above errors.

These issued where found with the [errortype](https://codeberg.org/fillmore-labs/errortype) linter and add this to Makefile as part of the linter suite.

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9873
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Co-committed-by: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
 2026-03-06 00:48:06 +01:00
oliverpool
a0d6970442 fix: prevent panic on gitlab import (releases/issues) (#11282) 
It is unfortunately all mixed up, because refreshing the data, means breaking the tests. And changing the code means needing fresh data.

- tests: ignore some more headers and sort the rest when dumping http responses
- code: fixed #10234 by requesting the latest issues first.
- tests: created a new repo to replace the disappeared repo, needed for the skip-numbers test
- refreshed the testdata.
- follow-up fixes to get the tests green.
- including a cherry-pick of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36295 and #11272

Co-authored-by: Joakim Olsson <joakim@unbound.se>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11282
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
 2026-03-03 21:36:14 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
0eca229d15
 		feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /teams/{id}/repos 
**Breaking*: /teams/{id}/repos previously allowed read access to private
repositories even if a "public-only" access token was in-use.  This has
been restricted to only return public repositories in this case.
 2026-03-01 10:54:43 -07:00
Mathieu Fenniak
4bd81d3363
 		feat: add authorization reducer support to SearchRepoOptions 2026-03-01 10:54:43 -07:00
Mathieu Fenniak
c89504d573 feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /user/subscriptions & /users/{username}/subscriptions 2026-03-01 17:05:53 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
9c748e87e1 feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /user/starred & /users/{username}/starred 2026-03-01 17:05:53 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
5582faa0c7 refactor: split AuthorizationReducer into a base RepositoryAuthorizationReducer interface 2026-03-01 17:05:53 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
2f19237a14 feat: add GetUserRepoPermissionWithReducer 2026-02-27 17:17:29 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
a1eff6f0dc feat: backend DB model for fine-grained repo access tokens 2026-02-27 17:17:29 +01:00
Myers Carpenter
2d4a3e5658 fix(models): deduplicate project sorting values and add unique constraints (#11334) 
Project columns and cards use a sorting field for ordering, but nothing prevents duplicate values from being inserted. This causes unpredictable ordering and makes swap-based reordering unsafe. Additionally, the same issue can be added to a project multiple times, which shouldn't be possible.

This PR adds a migration to clean up existing data and enforce three unique constraints:
- (project_id, sorting) on project_board — one sorting value per column per project
- (project_id, issue_id) on project_issue — one card per issue per project
- (project_board_id, sorting) on project_issue — one sorting value per card per column

The migration deduplicates existing rows and reassigns sequential sorting values before adding the constraints.

Changes

- Migration: fix duplicate sorting values in project_board and project_issue, remove duplicate (project_id, issue_id) rows, add three unique constraints
- MoveColumnsOnProject: two-phase swap (negate then set) to avoid constraint collisions
- MoveIssuesOnProjectColumn: three-phase approach with duplicate validation and sorted lock ordering
- UpdateColumn: always persist sorting field (allows setting to 0)
- GetDefaultColumn: query max sorting before auto-creating
- createDefaultColumnsForProject: explicit sequential sorting
- changeProjectStatus: only set ClosedDateUnix when closing

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

- 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 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

- [ ] 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.

*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/11334
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org>
Co-committed-by: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org>
 2026-02-27 16:25:20 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
0ae6235386 fix: allow Actions runner to recover tasks lost during fetching from intermittent errors (#11401) 
Probably fixes (or improves, at least) https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/1391, paired with the runner implementation https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1393.

When the FetchTask() API is invoked to create a task, unpreventable environmental errors may occur; for example, network disconnects and timeouts. It's possible that these errors occur after the server-side has assigned a task to the runner during the API call, in which case the error would cause that task to be lost between the two systems -- the server will think it's assigned to the runner, and the runner never received it.  This can cause jobs to appear stuck at "Set up job".

The solution implemented here is idempotency in the FetchTask() API call, which means that the "same" FetchTask() API call is expected to return the same values. Specifically, the runner creates a unique identifier which is transmitted to the server as a header `x-runner-request-key` with each FetchTask() invocation which defines the sameness of the call, and the runner retains the value until the API call receives a successful response. The server implementation returns the same tasks back if a second (or Nth) call is received with the same `x-runner-request-key` header.  In order to accomplish this is records the `x-runner-request-key` value that is used with each request that assigns tasks.

As a complication, the Forgejo server is unable to return the same `${{ secrets.forgejo_token }}` for the task because the server stores that value in a one-way hash in the database.  To resolve this, the server regenerates the token when retrieving tasks for a second time.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

### 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/11401
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-02-22 23:24:38 +01:00
Antonin Delpeuch
45db3c98a3 feat: link CI job to its defining workflow file (#11216) 
Fixes #11036.

This adds a link from a CI run to the file that its workflow was taken from.

| Before | After |
|---------|---------|
| ![screenshot](/attachments/49741492-c98b-4a9a-b8bf-f6628698e008) | ![image](/attachments/8ec7dd76-d4ba-4f58-a63a-dd7886e16aae) |

Before:
* the `test.yml` link points to the list of other runs (`/org123/repo2/actions?workflow=test.yml`)

After:
* the `test.yml` link points to the workflow definition (`/org123/repo2/src/commit/55b048363c8cfa7d9e8b5cade5c75681bd0c7328/.forgejo/workflows/test.yml`)
* the `all runs` link points to the list of other runs (`/org123/repo2/actions?workflow=test.yml`)

I have tried to retain the existing link to the list of workflow runs (moving it to a separate link), but I am not sure if this link should be retained at all and if so how.

## Checklist

### Tests

- 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 added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
  - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
  - [x] 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.

<!--start release-notes-assistant-->

## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
  - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11216): <!--number 11216 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bGluayBDSSBqb2IgdG8gaXRzIGRlZmluaW5nIHdvcmtmbG93IGZpbGU=-->link CI job to its defining workflow file<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11216
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Co-committed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
 2026-02-20 03:11:29 +01:00
limiting-factor
d4de6a4e5c fix: UserTypeRemoteUser is an eligible organization member (#11326) 
A [safeguard][0] was added to ensure a team member is not an organization. A [discussion][1] concluded that remote users should not yet be allowed to be team members, at least until it is implemented (by F3 or ActivityPub).

As [gof3 v3.11.25][2] has support for [teams][3], remote users need to be added as an eligible team member, otherwise compliance tests for the Forgejo internal driver [implementation][4] fail.

The IsUserByID function is renamed to IsAnEligibleTeamMemberByID to clarify its purpose. The TestIsUserConsistency is removed because the IsUser function is used in [an entirely different context][5] and there is no reason to ensure both are consistent. A unit test is added for IsAnEligibleTeamMemberByID as a replacement and also verifies organizations are not considered eligible.

[0]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9757
[1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9757#issuecomment-7802255
[2]: https://code.forgejo.org/f3/gof3/releases/tag/v3.11.25
[3]: https://code.forgejo.org/f3/gof3/pulls/484/files
[4]: 9c565a9b37 (diff-241521b6eb)
[5]: b66a76686d/routers/api/v1/api.go (L299-L308)

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11326
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Co-committed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
 2026-02-17 02:39:46 +01:00
Manuel Ganter
5b6bbabd74 feat: implement ephemeral runners (#9962) 
As described in [this comment](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/issues/19#issuecomment-739221) one-job runners are not secure when running in host mode. We implemented a routine preventing runner tokens from receiving a second job in order to render a potentially compromised token useless. Also we implemented a routine that removes finished runners as soon as possible.

Big thanks to [ChristopherHX](https://github.com/ChristopherHX) who did all the work for gitea!

Rel: #9407

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

- 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 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

- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9962
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Manuel Ganter <manuel.ganter@think-ahead.tech>
Co-committed-by: Manuel Ganter <manuel.ganter@think-ahead.tech>
 2026-02-16 18:56:56 +01:00
Nils Philippsen
5589182c54 fix: honor org/user project in new issue (#9906) 
Previously, when a project id was passed into the new issue form as a
query parameter, it wouldn’t be selected if the project belonged to the
user or organization instead of directly to the repository.

Resolves forgejo/forgejo#8489

Signed-off-by: Nils Philippsen <nils@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9906
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Nils Philippsen <nilsph@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Nils Philippsen <nilsph@noreply.codeberg.org>
 2026-02-16 05:52:47 +01:00
Robert Wolff
54d952ee66 feat(ui): support additional job status selection in dropdown menu on Actions tab (#11156) 
### Tests

- 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 added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
  - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
  - [x] 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.

### Disclaimer

Generative AI (ChatGPT) was used to debug the e2e test, with copied code lines below threshold of originality.

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11156
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
 2026-02-11 03:22:53 +01:00
Mathieu Fenniak
51d0188533 refactor: replace Value() from Option[T] with Get() & ValueOrZeroValue() (#11218) 
`Option[T]` currently exposes a method `Value()` which is permitted to be called on an option that has a value, and an option that doesn't have a value.  This API is awkward because the behaviour if the option doesn't have a value isn't clear to the caller, and, because almost all accesses end up being `.Has()?` then `OK, use .Value()`.

`Get() (bool, T)` is added as a better replacement, which both returns whether the option has a value, and the value if present.  Most call-sites are rewritten to this form.

`ValueOrZeroValue()` is a direct replacement that has the same behaviour that `Value()` had, but describes the behaviour if the value is missing.

In addition to the current API being awkward, the core reason for this change is that `Value()` conflicts with the `Value()` function from the `driver.Valuer` interface.  If this interface was implemented, it would allow `Option[T]` to be used to represent a nullable field in an xorm bean struct (requires: https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/66).

_Note:_ changes are extensive in this PR, but are almost all changes are easy, mechanical transitions from `.Has()` to `.Get()`.  All of this work was performed by hand.

## Checklist

The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. 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

- 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 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

- [ ] 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.

*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/11218
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
 2026-02-10 16:41:21 +01:00