Submitting the repo avatar form without selecting a file shows a raw Go error: `Avatar.Open: open : no such file or directory.`. The existing `nil` check does not prevent this from happening.
The user avatar handler already guards against this same problem with [`form.Avatar != nil && form.Avatar.Filename != ""`](e1cecbd276/routers/web/user/setting/profile.go (L141)), I've done the same for the repo avatar handler.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11335
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Bram Hagens <bram@bramh.me>
Co-committed-by: Bram Hagens <bram@bramh.me>
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.
The API already checked the permission sufficiently if auto merge could
be cancelled by the doer. The web route did not. Consolidate this check
in the function that lives in the services directory.
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.
Fixes#11036.
This adds a link from a CI run to the file that its workflow was taken from.
| Before | After |
|---------|---------|
|  |  |
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>
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.
Resolvesforgejo/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>
`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>
Webhooks not enabled for push events cannot be tested using the
"Test delivery" button, because the built-in test payload corresponds
to a push event and is therefore filtered out at delivery time if the
webhook isn't configured to trigger for such events.
This fixes it by delivering the payload for a push event regardless
of the webhook's configuration. This has the downside of delivering
a payload which isn't necessarily representative of what the webhook
will deliver for real, but it would be a significant effort to implement
test payloads for all possible event types. We leave this as a follow-up
improvement.
Fixes#7934.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11073
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Co-committed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
This PR fixes a number of typos throughout the entire repository. Running https://github.com/crate-ci/typos and then changing all occurrences that I naively deemed "safe enough".
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10753
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
Co-committed-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
- `CodeSearchMode` should now be set when keyword is empty
- The default value for search mode should be exact, use fuzzy ONLY when fuzziness is enabled in settings
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10964
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Co-committed-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Replace newlines from the repo description with spaces to match in-app
rendering.
Related issue: #10823
## 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
- [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/10914
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Enrique Sanchez Cardoso <enriqueesanchz@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: Enrique Sanchez Cardoso <enriqueesanchz@gmail.com>
Fix#10714 (introduced in #8438) by silently ignoring large .gitmodules files.
Additionally:
- the limit was bumped from 10KB to 64KB (https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/master/.gitmodules has 20KB)
- a warning is shown on the .gitmodules view page if this limit is exceeded
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10744
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Fixes#10155
When participants are displayed, don't include those that only have made a pending review. Those should not yet be revealed as participants.
Apart from adding automated tests, this is the manual verification process I've followed:
1. Set up three users
2. User 1 creates a repository, then creates a pull request adding a new file
3. User 2 creates a new code comment but doesn't not publish the review, shows as pending.
4. User 3 creates a new code comment and publishes the review.
5. From everyone's perspective the number of participants is: 2. And, the participants displayed in the list are 1 and 3. User 2, which hasn't yet published the review is not displayed.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10528
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: luisadame <luisadame@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: luisadame <luisadame@noreply.codeberg.org>
Minor code cleanup for code/issue search.
Mostly breaking up the common functionality into separate functions :)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10549
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Co-committed-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
- Follow up of forgejo/forgejo!5041, forgejo/forgejo!6074, forgejo/forgejo!8692, forgejo/forgejo!9923
- The `webhook` table contains a encrypted header authorization.
- Use `keying` to safely store this secret and bound them to the table, column and row id
- The migration isn't spectacular but does closely follow what we learned in the previous three migrations: use a transaction and delete records when you can't decrypt them.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10059
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Previously searching for posters would use full name or username depending on the `[ui].DEFAULT_SHOW_FULL_NAME` setting, now it searches for both of them regardless of the setting.
This also a fixes a bug when `[ui].DEFAULT_SHOW_FULL_NAME=true` that users without a full name where not able to searched for.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10394
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: BtbN <btbn@btbn.de>
Co-committed-by: BtbN <btbn@btbn.de>
Change that the Cancel button is shown until all jobs are finished and do not hide it, when the first job failed.
Additionally the wrapping of the header was changed.
| Before | After |
| :--: | :----: |
|  |  |
Fixes#8922
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9261
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-committed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Make the variable `GITHUB_WORKFLOW_REF` available in Forgejo Action workflows. It is the ref path to the workflow and looks like `testowner/testrepo/.forgejo/workflows/test-workflow.yaml@refs/heads/main` ([GitHub documentation](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/variables)). GitHub Actions like [gh-action-pypi-publish](https://github.com/pypa/gh-action-pypi-publish) rely on its presence. See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/56 for additional details.
`GITHUB_WORKFLOW_REF` cannot be generated easily during an action run. Either the path to workflow file has to be hardcoded or inferred by replicating the logic Forgejo uses to determine it. That is further complicated by the fact that Forgejo supports multiple search paths, namely `.forgejo/workflows`, `.gitea/workflows`, and `.github/workflows`. It is also the reason that the workflow directory is now stored in the database alongside the name of the workflow file.
Partial implementation is required in Forgejo Runner, see https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1197.
Example workflow:
```yaml
on:
push:
workflow_dispatch:
schedule:
- cron: "* * * * *"
jobs:
test:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- run: |
echo "FORGEJO_WORKFLOW_REF=$FORGEJO_WORKFLOW_REF"
echo "GITHUB_WORKFLOW_REF=$GITHUB_WORKFLOW_REF"
echo "forgejo.workflow_ref=${{ forgejo.workflow_ref }}"
echo "github.workflow_ref=${{ github.workflow_ref }}"
```
## 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.
- [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/10276
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
The rationale for keeping it behind a flag is due to fuzzy search being computationally intensive #5261
Admins may opt-in by setting the `[indexer].REPO_INDEXER_FUZZY_ENABLED` flag to true.
Closes#10331
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10378
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Co-committed-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
This PR fixes the issue https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/10359
## 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.
- [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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10387): <!--number 10387 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4KDEwMzU5KTogQ291bnQgcmVsZWFzZXMgY29ycmVjdGx5IHdoZW4gdXNpbmcgZmlsdGVycyAocSk=-->fix(10359): Count releases correctly when using filters (q)<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10387
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Rodrigo Villablanca <villa061004@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: Rodrigo Villablanca <villa061004@gmail.com>
Thanks a lot to @floss4good who pointed this out in the comments of
#10253!
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10275
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: floss4good <floss4good@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: nachtjasmin <nachtjasmin@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: nachtjasmin <nachtjasmin@posteo.de>
On the page displaying the logs of an action run attempt, the header directly above the logs always showed the status of the job. That resulted in the wrong status being displayed for previous run attempts.
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/10236.
## 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.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10321): <!--number 10321 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZGlzcGxheSBhY3Rpb24gcnVuIGF0dGVtcHQgc3RhdHVzIGluc3RlYWQgb2Ygam9iIHN0YXR1cw==-->display action run attempt status instead of job status<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10321
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
To make sure that the code stays maintainable, I added the `importas` linter to ensure that the imports for models and services stay consistent.
I realised that this might be needed after finding some discrepancies between singular/plural naming, and, especially in the case of the `forgejo.org/services/context` package, multiple different aliases like `gitea_ctx`, `app_context` and `forgejo_context`. I decided for `app_context`, as that seems to be the most commonly used naming.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10253
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: nachtjasmin <nachtjasmin@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: nachtjasmin <nachtjasmin@posteo.de>
Identified in code review https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10244#issuecomment-8576643, the `PreExecutionError` field in `ActionRun` isn't well implemented as it translates the error at action runtime rather than later when the action is viewed in the UI. This PR adds an error code and error details column that can be more correctly translated.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10267
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#10214
- The renamed file can be any value, so escape it properly for usage in a URL path.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10265
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
While the page `/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run}/jobs/{job}/attempt/{attempt}` offers a button to download the logs of the currently displayed Action run attempt, it always sent the logs of the last attempt. For example, if there were two attempts, it was impossible to download the logs of the first attempt. With this fix, the user receives the logs of the attempt currently being displayed.
Users that have the page open while Forgejo is being upgraded will not be able to download logs until they have refreshed the page.
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/10221.
## 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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10225): <!--number 10225 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZG93bmxvYWQgbG9ncyBvZiBjdXJyZW50bHkgZGlzcGxheWVkIEFjdGlvbiBydW4gYXR0ZW1wdA==-->download logs of currently displayed Action run attempt<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10225
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- The `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` APIs allow a user to link an issue in one repository as "depending upon" an issue in another repository. Forgejo's implementation had an incorrect permission check which would verify only that the user had write permissions on the issue being modified, and not on the issue it was linking to. Due to the incorrect permission check, it was possible to view limited information (the existence of, and title of) an issue in a private repository that the user does not have access to view. The permission check has been corrected to take into account visibility of the remote repository.
[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Fetching information about a release via the `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/releases/tag/{tag}` API endpoint did not check whether the release was a draft, allowing accessing to information about a draft release to users who could predict an upcoming release tag but didn't have access to view it. The missing check has been added, returning a 404 response when the release is not published.
[CVSS 6.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Forgejo's web interface allows deleting tags on a git repository through a form post. The endpoint for this form post had misconfigured middleware handlers which enforce security rights, allowing an anonymous user, or a logged-in user without the correct permissions, to delete tags on repositories that they did not own by injecting arbitrary internal tag identifiers into the form. The middleware handler configuration has been corrected.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When the head branch of a pull request matches a branch protection rule, the head branch should be able to be merged or rebased only according to the "Push" rules defined in the protection rule. An implementation error checked those branch protection rules in the context of the base repository rather than the head repository, allowing users with write access to the base repository to be considered able to push to the branch, bypassing the "Enable push" option's expected security control.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- An issue owner can manipulate form inputs to delete the content history of comments they did not create, as long as those comments are on issues that they own. Although comment content is not affected, the history of edits on the comment can be trimmed. The validation in the form handler was corrected.
[CVSS 5.1 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When a repository is configured with tag protection rules, it should not be possible for a user that is outside the whitelisted users or teams from modifying the protected tags. An incorrect parameter being passed to a security verification method allowed a user with write access to the repo to delete tags even if they were protected, as long as the tag was originally created by a user who is still authorized by the protection rules.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Security bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGZpeCBkZXBlbmRlbmN5IHJlcG8gcGVybXMgaW4gQ3JlYXRlL1JlbW92ZUlzc3VlRGVwZW5kZW5jeQ==-->fix(api): fix dependency repo perms in Create/RemoveIssueDependency<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 1 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGRyYWZ0IHJlbGVhc2VzIGNvdWxkIGJlIHJlYWQgYmVmb3JlIGJlaW5nIHB1Ymxpc2hlZA==-->fix(api): draft releases could be read before being published<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 2 --><!--description bWlzY29uZmlndXJlZCBzZWN1cml0eSBjaGVja3Mgb24gdGFnIGRlbGV0ZSB3ZWIgZm9ybQ==-->misconfigured security checks on tag delete web form<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 3 --><!--description aW5jb3JyZWN0IGxvZ2ljIGluICJVcGRhdGUgUFIiIGRpZCBub3QgZW5mb3JjZSBoZWFkIGJyYW5jaCBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIHJ1bGVzIGNvcnJlY3RseQ==-->incorrect logic in "Update PR" did not enforce head branch protection rules correctly<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 4 --><!--description aXNzdWUgb3duZXIgY2FuIGRlbGV0ZSBhbm90aGVyIHVzZXIncyBjb21tZW50J3MgZWRpdCBoaXN0b3J5IG9uIHNhbWUgaXNzdWU=-->issue owner can delete another user's comment's edit history on same issue<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 5 --><!--description dGFnIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gcnVsZXMgY2FuIGJlIGJ5cGFzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0YWcgZGVsZXRlIG9wZXJhdGlvbg==-->tag protection rules can be bypassed during tag delete operation<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Joshua Rogers <MegaManSec@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- Similair spirit of forgejo/forgejo!7453.
- Refactor the code in such a way that it always succeeds.
- To avoid doing mathematics if you use this function, define three security level (64, 128 and 256 bits) that correspond to a specific length which has that a security guarantee. I picked them as they fit the need for the existing usages of the code.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10110
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Lucas <sclu1034@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
See #8222 for context (loosely related to #4595).
## Implemented changes
The conversion logic is kept in the frontend and the related npm libraries are lazy-loaded (unchanged).
### Show some tabs on the preview of the `CITATION.*` file to switch between the formats:
### Convert the "Cite repository" to a simple link to the citation file
So that this change can be considered non-breaking
## Current state (before this PR)
The last non-test call of `git.Blob.GetBlobContent` is made to retrieve the content of an eventual CITATION file.
This is available in the `...` menu near the clone URL:
And is displayed as a popup:
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9103
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Forgejo Actions allows variables in `jobs.<job_id>.runs-on`. However, the action list [skips checking whether a suitable runner](c3412d0579/routers/web/repo/actions/actions.go (L114-L148)) is available if an expression contains variables. That hampers a user's ability to figure out whether an expression was evaluated correctly and why a job might not be picked up by an available runner.
This PR adds the ability to surface more complex and additional diagnostic information on the action view screen. Previously, only a job's status (waiting, running, ...) was displayed. Now, extended messages like "Waiting for a runner with the following labels: docker, trixie" are displayed with the possibility to show multiple messages simultaneously.
How it looked before:
How it looks after updating Forgejo without reloading the window:
How it looks afterwards with a single label:
How it looks afterwards with multiple labels:
## 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.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [x] 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
- [ ] 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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9966): <!--number 9966 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZGlzcGxheSBkZXRhaWxlZCBhY3Rpb24gcnVuIGRpYWdub3N0aWNz-->display detailed action run diagnostics<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9966
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
In forgejo/forgejo!2834 and forgejo/forgejo!5307 it was made so it's no longer possible to modify and delete internal reference, not having this restriction lead to broken pull requests when people used something like `git push --mirror`. However it now still leads to problem with that command as the git client tries to delete such references. We can solve this by using git's `receive.hideRefs` to make this ref read-only and avoid advertising it when someone does `git push --mirror`.
Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#9942
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10015
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Return the Note object (avoid C-style functions).
Motivation to refactor this function is to avoid the function that uses last commit cache for git-notes, because it is not needed at the scale of git-notes. In the worst case it can be considered to make a patch to git to get the message and commitID, because git seems to have efficient code to do this (for getting messages, but does not expose the commit id).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9985
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
The `repository` table has quite a few "count of related objects" fields on it, including the number of issues, closed issues, pull requests, and closed pull requests. These fields specifically will cause deadlocks during concurrent PR merges as documented in #9785.
These fields are not used in database queries. In order to eliminate the deadlock possibility on them, I've moved them to be calculated on-demand with caching, with the cache being invalidated in the same places that the recalc used to be triggered.
I've supplemented the already in-place automated testing with manual testing performing simple close & reopen of issues & PRs, and the counts which are used in the tabs at the top of the repo page are updated correctly as expected.
Near future work:
- Similar change can probably be performed to fix#9846
- Last known deadlock identified from #9785; I'm hoping to incorporate the synthetic deadlock test in a near future PR to prevent regressions
## 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
- Tests were already in-place covering these fields; they've been adjusted from using the fields to the new accessor methods.
- 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
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] 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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9922): <!--number 9922 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVkdWNlIGRlYWRsb2NrcyBtZXJnaW5nIFBScyBieSB1c2luZyBjYWNoaW5nIGZvciByZXBvIGlzc3VlIGNvdW50IHN0YXRz-->reduce deadlocks merging PRs by using caching for repo issue count stats<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9922
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This will be computed by [`NewPullrequest` via `testPatch`](3f1731a765/services/pull/pull.go (L40-L46)) before the pull request is inserted into the database: 4adec07103/services/pull/patch.go (L169-L177)
The AGit codepath already didn't set the mergebase.
Tests are added to confirm that merge-base is still indeed set upon pull request creation via the web route and API route.
There's no immediate benefit, this is in preparation of trying to do less `git` commands on certain web/API routes. The enhancement thus here being `compareInfo` is not used from `parseCompareInfo` and could potentially in the future no longer have to be computed or could be skipped to compute for this API route, similar for removing a dependency on `ci.CompareInfo`. The `compareInfo` is relatively _heavy_ to compute and is not used in all codepaths.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9734
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fixes#9693.
Image contents are not part of automated testing, so I manually tested this by:
- Mutating the `created` field to `NULL` for a target card, verifying image generated without a cache
- Double-checking by mutating the `created_unix` field for a target card, verifying image generated to correct updated date (checking my cache busting)
## 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
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] 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/9705
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Previous such PR: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9463
As long as changes here do not conflict with https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9597 it is safe to merge without merging that one first.
* removals from the INI are included to preserve traceability of strings being moved around
* in non-base items are prepended to the top to avoid conflict with Weblate
* in English insertion happened in a semi-random place to avoid conflict with PRs that append strings at the end
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9625
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Adds the ability for the drag and drop file upload to handle subdirectories. You drag and drop and it preserves your sub-folder substructure. Nothing more, nothing less.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- User Interface features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6687): <!--number 6687 --><!--line 0 --><!--description RHJhZyBhbmQgZHJvcCBuZXN0ZWQgZGlyZWN0b3JpZXM=-->Drag and drop nested directories<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: David Rotermund <davrot@neuro.uni-bremen.de>
Co-authored-by: Otto Richter <git@otto.splvs.net>
Co-authored-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6687
Reviewed-by: jerger <jerger@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: David Rotermund <davrot@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: David Rotermund <davrot@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes#6185.
## 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 also tested the changes manually.
### 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
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] 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/9045
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Co-committed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Resolves#8403
There's a issue with the comment history items that are deleted, they can be deleted by the author of the comment or by those that have write access. However when the item is deleted, it shows that the one who wrote that revision of the comment deleted it, which is not always true. Strike-through the item instead.
Co-authored-by: Daniele Pintore <daniele.pintore1@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8458
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: danielep <danielep@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: danielep <danielep@noreply.codeberg.org>
