**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10927
Continuation of #10598Closes#7254
Implement repo granular watch selection
I adopted a lot of the frontend from #10598 while redoing the entire back-end. I propose this new model:
- Remove the WatchMode enum.
- Add the WatchSelection struct, which represents the granular selection. Notice that there is no `watching` bool. I tried very hard to keep the structure as simple and redundancy-free as possible. Therefore, people not watching a repo at all either don't have a watch record or one with an entirely unselected WatchSelection struct.
- Add the WatchSource enum. It replaces the WatchMode enum and has a single purpose: determine whether a watch was explicitly or automatically initiated.
Notice that replacing this
```go
And("`watch`.mode<>?", WatchModeDont).
```
with this is correct:
```go
And(
builder.Or(
builder.Eq{"`watch`.watch_selection_issues": true},
builder.Eq{"`watch`.watch_selection_pull_requests": true},
builder.Eq{"`watch`.watch_selection_releases": true},
),
).
```
That's because there are four modes: dont, none, auto and normal. When `<>` with dont, we look for auto and normal, because there are no records with none. Therefore, the old code looks for records that indicate watching. The code I replaced this with does so, too, just more granular.
Also notice that I've prepared a future `user preset` in a few places. See below for a little more info on that.
## Next PR
I plan to continue working on this. I want to implement a `user preset` option. The user sets that `user preset` in her settings and may use them in any repo.
<details>
- rename account settings to account and notifications
- user preset (always use this preset for newly accessible repos (according to AutoWatchOnChanges and AutoWatchNewRepos))
</details>
## Further PRs
- make api able to granular watch
- move (email) notifications to new notifications tab
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-authored-by: pat-s <patrick.schratz@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: #10927
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
(cherry picked from commit 8770ffc848)
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13271
- separate test cases from fixtures
- testcase.go: A `testCase` describes a test using `testData`
- fixture.go: `fixture*` are function that creates the conditions for this test case to run
- move the testData closer to the beginning
- update the README.md
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13271
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
(cherry picked from commit c1351e62d4)
```
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/permissions/tests/README.md
one line because coverage targets are not the same in v15, keep the
non coverage documentation
routers/api/v1/permissions/tests/check_fork_destination.go
ignore as it only exists in the main branch
```
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13312
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13299fixes#13295
### 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.
*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.
Co-authored-by: dawe <dawedawe@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13310
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13215
Followup of the refactor adding setter/getter to APIContext https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13143
- Only has an impact on the getters used by `routers/api/v1/permissions`
- When GetX and X both exist, remove GetX
- When GetX exists and X does not, rename GetX to X
- GetOrg is an exception as it would conflict with Org and is renamed Organization. This is due to APIContext having its own Org structure that includes an Organization.
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13217
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13143
The details of the refactor are in [a separate branch](https://codeberg.org/limiting-factor/forgejo/commits/branch/wip-api-context-accessors-save) which details how it was done. This pull request contains a squash of those commits rebased on top of the current Forgejo branch, which involved conflict resolution.
Given the magnitude of the change, there is a high chance that a large number of future pull requests merged in Forgejo will create conflicts. They will be dealt with in the same way as chore: refactor orgAssignment to two separate middlewares (#13155).
## Review
The only risk I can think of is a getter/setter implementation being incorrectly implemented. This is probably where a detailed review is most needed, in the `services/context/api.go` file.
To not increase the size of the pull request, the `GetX()` accessors were preserved although they are redundant with `X()`. They will be removed in a followup pull request.
## Backporting strategy.
Cherry-picking the commit to v15 has a significant amount of conflicts in 8 files out of 111.
```
unmerged routers/api/v1/activitypub/repository.go
unmerged routers/api/v1/admin/user.go
unmerged routers/api/v1/api.go
unmerged routers/api/v1/org/team.go
unmerged routers/api/v1/repo/action.go
unmerged routers/api/v1/repo/pull.go
unmerged routers/api/v1/user/follower.go
unmerged services/context/api.go
```
Instead of resolving them, I think it is easier and safer to repeat the [refactor steps](https://codeberg.org/limiting-factor/forgejo/commits/branch/wip-api-context-accessors-save) in v15.
I also think it is worth the effort since it will avoid trivial backport conflicts on over 100 files.
## Context
This is a followup pull request discussed originally at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12512
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13213
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
System administrators can determine which hosts can be accessed by Forgejo for git mirroring via the config settings `[migrations].ALLOWED_DOMAINS`, `...BLOCKED_DOMAINS`, and `....ALLOW_LOCALNETWORKS`. However, there were edge cases where these settings were ineffective:
- Config entries were only checked when mirrors were initially configured, and not later when a mirror pull/push occurred. DNS changes, or server configuration changes, could cause a previously safe URL to no longer be safe. These settings are now re-checked on every mirror pull/push.
- When accessing a git repository over http, git would follow HTTP redirects, allowing a violation of the `[migrations]` config entries. The git option `http.followRedirects=false` is now set to prevent git from following these redirects.
- When performing Git LFS synchronization, it was assumed that the git URL passing migration URL checks was sufficient protection. Specifically for pull mirrors which allow the usage of "Advanced settings" -> "LFS endpoint" to configure a separate LFS endpoint, these settings were never enforced, and for all mirrors they would have been subject to not being rechecked if the DNS had changed since configured. LFS mirroring now uses an HTTP client that enforces the `[migrations]` config settings.
**Breaking:** If a repository mirror that depends on HTTP redirects will no longer work.
For example, if you've mirrored a repository from a Forgejo instance at `https://example.com/OWNER/REPO.git` and the repository or owner are renamed, Forgejo will provide an HTTP redirect that continues to allow git operations to work at the old URL. Due to this redirect prohibition, this mirror will no longer work.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- It is not currently documented that the `[migrations]` settings are used to control access to mirrors. Forgejo advises it when an error occurs, but it could be added: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls/2023
- [ ] 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/13129
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Closesforgejo/forgejo#13139
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [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-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13140): <!--number 13140 --><!--line 0 --><!--description R0VUIC9yZXBvcy97b3duZXJ9L3tyZXBvfS9pc3N1ZXMvY29tbWVudHMve2lkfSBkb2VzIG5vdCBmYWlsIGlmIHRoZSBwb3N0ZXIgaXMgYSBkZWxldGVkIHVzZXI=-->GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/{id} does not fail if the poster is a deleted user<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13140
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Move from storing in the untyped Base.Data disctionary to a typed field of APIContext.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13138
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Minor refactoring - came across `func orgAssignment(args ...bool)` which takes two undocumented arguments, does two unrelated mostly unrelated things. Split it into two separate functions. I have other changes to make in this area but wanted to clear this minor change out of the patch queue.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13155
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
- All middleware enforcing permissions are refactored to use
the `apiv1_permissions1 interface rather than accessing data
members. Unless specified below, their logic is otherwise
unmodified.
- `repoAssignment()` permissions is split out in `repoAccess()`
and they are verified to always be used together with `FollowedBy`.
- `commentAssignment()` permissions is split out in `ReqValidCommentID()`
and they are verified to always be used together with `FollowedBy`.
- `checkPermission()` is a helper for permission middleware that do
not have arguments other than the context.
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` and `tokenRequiresRepoOwnerScope()` both
rely on the determination of the permission leve (read or write)
based on the HTTP method (`GET`, `PUT`, etc.). This logic was moved to
the `requiredScopeLevel()` function and the result provided in
argument to the permission function. The permission functions do
not know about the HTTP method.
- `ReqSelfOrAdmin` has a new anonymous function helper to compare
the user names instead of the pointers because it is more correct.
This is not a bug fix but it is more robust.
Fixes#12564. Fixes#8951.
This introduces a new setting, `ADD_MEMBERS_BY_INVITATIONS`, which is turned off by default.
When turned on, adding a user to a team issues an invitation instead of adding them directly to the team.
A prerequisite for this work was to be able to link invitations to existing users (so far, they were only associated to an email address, since those invitations were meant to be issued to users who didn't have an account yet).
---
I plan to work on the following improvements, which I propose to do in separate PRs given that this one is already a bit big:
* generate an in-app notification for the invited user
* advertise the invitation to the invited user from the org page as well (#12120)
* show the list of invited users in the list of organization members (not just on the team page)
and various other improvements to invitations (#12570, #12716).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12845
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR adds a new linter to the codebase and addresses all the problems that it identified (including a small number of false positives). The lint-single-response Go analyzer attempts to prevent a common problem in Forgejo where it is possible for a web handler to provide a response to a request, and then continue code execution unintentionally. For example:
```go
err := json.Unmarshal(data, &claims)
if err != nil {
ctx.Error(http.StatusInternalServerError, "Error in unmarshal", err)
// Oops, I forgot to `return` here...
}
// ... more work occurs ...
ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, resp)
```
In order to detect these cases, lint-single-response contains a list of functions that deliver a web response. When any of those functions are used within a function, the control flow must not perform any work after the function is invoked -- it can only return and exit the function.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- Documentation on the new linter is included inline, in `build/lint-single-response/README.md`.
- [ ] 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/13087
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR fixes some minor issues with the swagger API documentation. These issues are:
1. The description for the `template` parameter for the `GET /repo/search` endpoint is incorrect. It says this:
```
include template repositories this user has access to (defaults to true)
```
When the parameter actually functions like this:
```
show only template, non-template or all repositories (defaults to all)
```
2. The the `gitignores` option in the `POST /user/repos` endpoint JSON object has a description that doesn't say how `gitignore` names should be separated. It's like this:
```
Gitignores to use
```
When it should be something like this:
```
Gitignores to use, separated by commas
```
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13082
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
- fix: prevent stored XSS in user display name on Actions page
- fix: LFS locks must belong to the intended repo, port from Gitea
- fix: prevent unauthorized access to draft releases via API
- fix: prevent writes to OpenID visibility which may affect other users
- fix: prevent viewing private PRs that are linked to public issues on public projects
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13001
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
This new API endpoint makes it possible to cancel action runs via the API. Previously this was only natively possible through the UI, the same `CancelRun` func has been reused for this feature.
### 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
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12957): <!--number 12957 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZmVhdChhcGkpOiBhZGQgbmV3IGAvcmVwb3Mve293bmVyfS97cmVwb30vYWN0aW9ucy9ydW5zL3tydW5faWR9L2NhbmNlbGAgQVBJIGVuZHBvaW50-->feat(api): add new `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/cancel` API endpoint<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12957
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Adds an option "force_overwrite_new_branch" when posting to
/repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents to modify multiple files in a repository.
When user provides both "branch" and "new_branch" options, and
"new_branch" already exists, the "force_overwrite_new_branch" option
allows the user to overwrite the existing branch. Under the hood this
amounts to a "git push --force".
[Issue #12600](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12600)
### 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.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
- [x] API swagger docs updated
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Co-authored-by: Rob Gonnella <rob.gonnella@papayapay.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12663
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Closes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/6093
This PR adds support for **multi-line review comments** on pull requests, allowing reviewers to select a range of lines in diffs instead of only a single line — similar to GitHub's implementation.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12582
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Closes#11859🙂
Wanted to be able to grab action logs from my homelab dashboard without juggling session cookies. Two endpoints so scripts and webhooks can pull logs without scraping the rendered UI:
- `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/jobs/{job_id}/logs` returns plaintext for a single job's latest task. The underlying reader is `io.ReadSeekCloser`, so passing it through `http.ServeContent` gives you HTTP `Range:` for free.
- `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/logs` streams a zip of every job's logs in the run. If a job hasn't started (`TaskID == 0`), its log expired, or opening the log file fails, the zip gets a `.MISSING` placeholder entry rather than bailing on the whole archive.
Both endpoints get `reqToken()` per-route. Logs can have secrets accidentally echoed into them, so I wanted auth required even though the outer `/repos` group's `tokenRequiresScopes(AccessTokenScopeCategoryRepository)` already covers scope.
## 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 the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. (`tests/integration/api_actions_job_logs_test.go`, `tests/integration/api_actions_run_logs_test.go`)
- 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. (The new endpoints are covered by the regenerated swagger spec in this PR; `docs/user/api-usage.md` is general auth/usage guidance and doesn't need changes. Happy to open a docs PR if reviewers prefer.)
### 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.
Release note added as `release-notes/12666.md`.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12666
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
This endpoint returns the Actions run metadata for the automatic token, making it possible for external services to authenticate a specific workflow run and understand its security context (e.g. whether it is a pull request run and if yes what pull request it is).
The concrete motivating case for this feature is safe pull request preview rendering. Currently, even Forgejo itself ([forgejo/docs](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/src/branch/next/.forgejo/workflows/pr.yml), [forgejo/website](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/src/branch/main/.forgejo/workflows/pr.yml)) uses carefully managed `pull_request_target` workflows for this task. The `pull_request_target` workflow type coupled with intentionally cloning the merge head is widely recognized as insecure, including by Forgejo developers. However, right now there is no particularly good replacement for this approach: Forgejo doesn't expose enough metadata to grant an Actions run permissions to update a part of a website, and only that part (by whichever mechanism this would happen).
I am one of the developers of [git-pages](https://codeberg.org/git-pages/git-pages), which is used as the new Codeberg Pages backend. I would like to implement native support for pull request previews that does not rely on carefully written but still fragile workflows that try to hide authorization tokens from untrusted code, but rather recognizes "pull request Actions run" as a unique kind of security context, and allow it to publish to a special "preview zone", segregated by the repository name and PR number. To do this I need to be able to authorize a specific workflow run. Right now there's no reasonable way to do this, but with the new endpoint it becomes trivial: actions/git-pages passes the automatic token to git-pages, git-pages asks Forgejo for metadata then forms an authorized site URL (e.g. `http://<reponame>-<username>-pr-<number>.preview.codeberg.page` though this is not the final format) to which this PR workflow may upload a site.
The API endpoint implemented in this PR has been discussed in the Matrix room and I understood that this change would be uncontroversial, hence I'm sending this PR right away instead of opening a feature request first. It doesn't introduce new response types, only returns an `ActionRun` for the authorization token. The namespaced URL `/api/v1/actions/run` was chosen because there are a number of things one could conceivably want to retrieve (e.g. `/api/v1/actions/job`); this specific endpoint seems by far the most useful though.
## 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 the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
The new API endpint is surfaced in Swagger, which seems sufficient.
### 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.
*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/12727
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
API consumers will see a different HTTP status code (404 instead of 500) for invalid SHAs.
Fixes: #12239
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12476
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
Following the previous contribution that added admin-level management of user access tokens (particularly useful for bot/service accounts), this change exposes the created_at field in the API response when listing or retrieving access tokens.
This information is needed to implement token rotation policies for these users — knowing when a token was created allows administrators to identify and revoke stale tokens.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12620): <!--number 12620 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZXhwb3NlIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbiBjcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlIGluIEFQSSByZXNwb25zZXM=-->expose access token creation date in API responses<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12620
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
- Validate and sanitize topics.
- Cap topics at 25 (limit used elsewhere, now unified constant).
- Add more details and rephrase common user-facing error messages.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12577
When a forking target organization was supplied, the API handler only verified
org membership. This is asymmetric with the rest of the codebase, as
CanCreateOrgRepo is used everywhere else.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*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.
Co-authored-by: jvoisin <julien.voisin@dustri.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12442
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
# Feature Request: Admin API route to manage access tokens for any user
## Problem
The existing API route to create access tokens (POST /api/v1/users/{username}/tokens) requires Basic authentication (username + password) via the reqBasicOrRevProxyAuth() middleware. This is by design: a token should not be created from another token.
However, this creates a blocker for environments where Basic authentication is disabled (ENABLE_BASIC_AUTHENTICATION = false), typically when authentication is delegated to an external SSO provider (e.g., OpenID Connect).
In such setups, bot/service accounts are provisioned by an external system that needs to:
Create a user via POST /api/v1/admin/users (works fine with an admin token)
Create an access token for that user (currently impossible without Basic auth or direct CLI/DB access)
The only workaround today is to SSH into the Forgejo server and run:
This is not suitable when the provisioning system has no direct access to the Forgejo host.
## Proposed solution
Add new admin-only API routes under the existing /api/v1/admin/users/{username} group to manage access tokens:
| Method | Route | Description |
|:-------- |:--------:| --------:|
| GET | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | List access tokens for a user|
|POST | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | Create an access token for a user|
|DELETE | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens/{id} | Delete an access token for a user|
These routes would:
Require a site admin token (reqToken() + reqSiteAdmin()) — no Basic auth needed
Use the AccessTokenScopeCategoryAdmin token scope
Reuse the existing handler logic from user.CreateAccessToken / user.ListAccessTokens / user.DeleteAccessToken
Accept the same request/response payloads as the existing user-facing routes
### Why this belongs in the admin API
It follows the existing pattern: admins can already create users, repos, orgs, SSH keys, and emails for any user via the admin API
It does not weaken security: only site administrators can call it, and it requires a valid admin-scoped token
It fills a gap: the admin CLI command forgejo admin user generate-access-token already provides this capability, but only locally
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323): <!--number 12323 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZmVhdChhcGkpOiBhZGQgYWRtaW4gcm91dGVzIHRvIG1hbmFnZSB1c2VyIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnM=-->feat(api): add admin routes to manage user access tokens<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Add the ability to remove workflow runs, either using the UI or the HTTP API. Workflow runs can only be removed once a workflow run has completed. For security reasons, only a repository administrator or a token with `write:repository` permissions can remove runs.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2184.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12478): <!--number 12478 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bWFrZSBpdCBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byByZW1vdmUgd29ya2Zsb3cgcnVucw==-->make it possible to remove workflow runs<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12478
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
The endpoint returning individual activities was missing access control checks, since IDs are sequential, this is not ideal.
Fixes#12333
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12382
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This changes the ReqHTTPSignature middleware to cover the entire activitypub
route group to not miss any new routes again in the future. Further, this adds
a tests iterating through all activitypub routes to test that the signature
verification is actually done.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12339
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
In the case you hit some API error (Github ratelimit was often a problem) or the instance restarted in the middle of your migration, you would be left with data on the disk and/or database. Upon retrying the migration the migration code would (rightfully) fail because it's trying to migrate stuff that already exists.
This was hit so often on Codeberg it was better to force people to delete and start whole migration process again: 28ee60c91f
Delete the repository data before retrying to solve this.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12370
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Fix: `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/tags/{sha}` returns empty verification for signed tags
### Problem
When an annotated tag is signed (GPG or SSH) but the underlying commit is **not** signed, the API endpoint `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/tags/{sha}` returns an empty `verification.signature` field.
This is because `ToAnnotatedTag` was calling `ToVerification(ctx, c)` with the **commit** object, which checks the commit's signature — not the tag's own signature. Since the commit is unsigned, the API returns `signature: ""` and `verified: false`.
This causes issues for tools that rely on the tag signature from the API to validate that a tag push event is from a trusted source.
### Fix
`ToAnnotatedTag` now checks if the tag has its own signature (`t.Signature != nil`). If so, it uses `ParseTagWithSignature` to verify the tag's signature and populates the `verification` field from the tag. Otherwise, it falls back to the commit signature (existing behavior for unsigned/lightweight tags).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12351
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(not applicable — Go-only change)
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
## Summary
Add public REST API endpoints under `/api/v1/` for listing, inspecting, downloading, and deleting Actions artifacts. Previously, artifacts could only be accessed through the web UI or the internal runner API.
### New endpoints
| Method | Path | Description |
|--------|------|-------------|
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts` | List all artifacts for a repository |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/artifacts` | List artifacts for a workflow run |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Get artifact metadata |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip` | Download artifact as zip |
| `DELETE` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Delete an artifact |
- List endpoints support `page`, `limit`, and `name` query parameters
- Both v1-v3 (multi-file, zip on-the-fly) and v4 (single zip) artifact backends are supported
- Expired artifacts are listed with `expired: true` but cannot be downloaded
- Delete requires write permission; all other endpoints require read permission
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12140
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Co-committed-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Allow for filtering users with 2fa enabled as admin. So that it is easy to audit users' settings compliance with iso27001, etc.
Resolves#11800
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12091
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org>
Prevent continued execution of some APIs with error responses that didn't correctly interrupt execution, resulting in bizarre outputs and possibly leaking secure data:
```
> GET /api/v1/repos/search?uid=-2&archived=false HTTP/2
> Host: example.org
> user-agent: curl/7.88.1
> accept: */*
> authorization: bearer ***
>
< HTTP/2 500
< server: nginx
< date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:20:09 GMT
< content-type: application/json;charset=utf-8
< cache-control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate, no-transform
< x-content-type-options: nosniff
< x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
<
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"ok":true,"data":[{"id":68,"owner":{"id":1,"login":"mfenniak", ...
```
As these errors only occur on situations that shouldn't be reproducible (minus software bugs), test automation isn't practical.
## 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...
- [ ] `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/12143
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
While developing tests for #12092, I came across a case where making a comment on a single-commit doesn't include the correct diff for the comment. This is because code comment placement occurs between the PR's base and the commit being viewed, but, that diff could be different from the commit's parent to the commit, which is what is being viewed on a single-commit diff.
Similar to #12055, this PR changes code comments to be more precise in their diff generation by providing the backend with both the base commit (`before_commit_id`) and head commit (`after_commit_id`) currently being viewed. As a result, the diffs attached to comments should exactly match the diffs being viewed by the user when the comment was placed.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12107
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
First round of patches to re-enable some lints from my side.
This PR also refactors the general key fetching code quite a bit due to the way it currently worked
with relying on some values being nil sometimes.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11253
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
This is hopefully the final part of PR #4767, rebased and squashed.
More thorough federation tests are at https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1276 but the mock has been extended to hopefully cover a good chunk as well.
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Co-authored-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de>
Co-authored-by: zam <mirco.zachmann@meissa.de>
Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10380
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
When performing `git blame` to identify the commit that a line of code came from, limit the blame to the commit that is currently being viewed in the UI. Before this change, the blame always occurred on the current head of the PR, causing these problems:
- When you click ➕ to load the comment form, the form that is dynamically loaded would have it's commit field pulled from the current PR head. That may not actually reflect the code that you were viewing at the time you authored the comment -- it could be a newer commit that occurred by the author while you were reviewing.
- When viewing a specific commit within a PR and leaving a comment, the blame would occur from the head -- if the file was changed in a later commit and the line-of-code moved up or down, the comment would be misplaced.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055): <!--number 12055 --><!--line 0 --><!--description d2hlbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgaW4gUFJzLCBtYWtlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0aXZlIHRvIHRoZSB2aXNpYmxlIGNvZGUncyBjb21taXQ=-->when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#6438
When a protected branch requires signed commits and no signing key is available, fast-forward-only merges should still be allowed because they do not create a new commit.
This patch applies signing checks by merge behaviour/style instead of one global gate:
- pass `mergeStyle` through `CheckPullMergeable(...)` in web/API/automerge paths
- require signing for commit-creating styles (`merge`, `rebase`, `rebase-merge`, `squash`)
- bypass signing precheck only for `fast-forward-only`
- align merge UI options with backend behaviour so signing-dependent styles are unavailable when signing cannot happen
- add Go unit tests for merge-style signing requirements
- add frontend unit coverage for the no-allowed-merge-styles guard
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11403
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: abdo <dev@abdo.wtf>
Co-committed-by: abdo <dev@abdo.wtf>
This PR is a minimal implementation to add `/actions/runs/{id}/jobs` (#11859).
This endpoint is also required by `/actions/jobs/{id}/logs`.
The pagination, filtering, custom sorting, more response fields are left to future work.
## Usage
```
curl -X 'GET' \
'https://hostname/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{id}/jobs' \
-H 'accept: application/json'
```
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Co-authored-by: elbaro <elbaro@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11915
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: elbaro <elbaro@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: elbaro <elbaro@noreply.codeberg.org>
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>
Picks the update commit from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11200 and fixes the new incompatibilities.
I ran full end-to-end tests against Forgejo and basic end-to-end tests against GoToSocial which appear to be working.
Co-authored-by: Renovate Bot <forgejo-renovate-action@forgejo.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11301
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
This pull fixes the issue described in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11427 .
The api handler of link/unlink packages use escaped path params to find packages. It causes errors when it comes to npm packages, which contains characters like `@` and `/`.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [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/11822
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Guangxiong Lin <hi@gxlin.org>
Co-committed-by: Guangxiong Lin <hi@gxlin.org>
