Increases the coverage of and simplifies `mustGetIssuePoster` in `services/actions/trust.go`. Also enables the nilnil lint for `services/actions/trust.go` and `services/actions/context.go`
### 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/13150
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Similar to #13129, fixing a few places where `[migrations].ALLOWED_DOMAINS`, `...BLOCKED_DOMAINS`, and `...ALLOW_LOCALNETWORKS` are not implemented in external migrations, creating SSRF risks.
### 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13184
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@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>
Any job with `permissions:`, and all jobs in a workflow with `permissions:`, will display a warning at the top of the Actions screen indicating that this field is not supported by Forgejo.
### 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
### Tests for JavaScript changes
- 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
- [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/13164
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
In cases where a job references `${{ needs.x.[...]}}` in a critical section relevant for dispatching a job -- `strategy.matrix`, `runs-on`, or `with` -- referencing a skipped job as `x` would cause an error that the job is missing the required output. With this change, the referencing job is now automatically skipped.
Fixes#13165.
I've performed manual testing on my dev instance and verified that the end-to-end multiarch test, identified as the problem in #13165, now successfully gets skipped as would be expected (and, not in the screenshot, that the matrix expands correctly when the `if` condition is true and real jobs are run).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- Fixes regression from #13030 which is unreleased.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13174
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@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>
Related issue: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11261
### 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/13089
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Introduce the capability to manually prioritize individual workflow runs. If possible, manually prioritized workflow runs will be run before all others. If multiple workflow runs have been prioritized manually, they will be run in their order of arrival, not in the order they have been prioritized manually.
Workflow run prioritization is best-effort, no matter whether a workflow run has been (de-)prioritized manually or by a prioritization algorithm. That means that it usually has an effect, but it's not guaranteed to have one.
Workflow run prioritization is performed by implementations of `RunPrioritizationStrategy`. Currently, only one implementation exists: first in, first out, with the option to manually mark individual workflow runs as prioritized. It is possible to add more strategies in the future and make them selectable in the user interface per repository.
Implementations of `RunPrioritizationStrategy` can only influence the ordering of `ActionRunJob`s by altering the priority of the `ActionRun` they belong to. That is a conscious choice to reduce the risks of deadlocks or other potentially weird behaviour that would be hard to debug. The priority of `ActionRun`s that are already running is not recalculated for the same reason.
The run priority cannot be observed by external systems because it is neither exposed in the HTTP API nor to webhook listeners. That limitation can be alleviated in future versions.
See also https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12830 and https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/92.
### 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
### 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/13045
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
When a user has a theme in the DB that is not among the themes in the configuration, the following happens to this user's UI:
Image: https://codeberg.org/attachments/bf8d4ff1-8216-4df5-ab90-8dc7e03784d9
The workaround is to manually go to Appearance settings and update the theme.
This can happen if the theme was removed from the server config. For example, admins don't want to have it anymore. Maybe it even was the default theme, which is being saved in the DB during sign up.
It will be useful for Forgejo if we, for example, want to separate colorblind them variants from the actual themes, or if we ever want to remove the Gitea themes. Rel: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13054.
And instance admins will also find it useful to not have to manually update the DB in case they want to get rid of some custom theme.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13110
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Fixes#12937.
The intent of this change is to allow Forgejo to evaluate `if` without having to send jobs to a runner. When you send a job to a runner just for it to return "skipped!", it takes up 1 runner capacity for a `fetch_interval` period, which can be avoided if Forgejo can evaluate the `if` condition itself.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/13030
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Forgejo uses the plain branch name instead of a so-called fully-formed ref name (`refs/heads/<branch_name>`) when setting the `Ref` property of scheduled workflows, which is wrong.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/13060.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] 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/13081
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
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>
Fix#12680 - Scheduled workflows are not re-registered when changing the repository default branch. As a result, scheduled workflows stop running until a new commit is pushed to the restored default branch.
### 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/13029
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
The routines for the removal of `ActionTask` expect that each `ActionTask` has logs attached and that `LogFilename` isn't empty. However, that is not always the case. For example, Forgejo can resolve jobs without dispatching them to a runner. In that case, a placeholder task is created without logs and `LogFilename`. The log removal routines simply concatenate the path of the log storage directory and `LogFilename` and try to delete that without verifying that `LogFilename` is present. Consequently, they try to remove the log storage directory. In most cases, that causes an error because the directory contains some files. To prevent that from happening, the log removal routines no longer allow empty filenames. And it is checked whether a task has logs before invoking them.
### 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...
- [ ] `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/13040
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@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 PR pertains to the client-side validation of the Website input on user, repo, and org profiles. #12962 extends `[service].VALID_SITE_URL_SCHEMES` to cover Website fields on repo and org profiles, where before that config key only applied to the one on user profiles. If that change merges, it will then be possible to construct an HTML [`pattern`](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Elements/input#pattern) attribute for general use on any Website form input that the server validates this way, thus enabling browsers to catch errors early relating to URL scheme confusion.
This PR (1) introduces such a `pattern` attribute, and (2) adds a new UI note to make clear to users which URL schemes are permitted. This change helps explain the browser's otherwise cryptic error messages regarding pattern mismatch, while also letting users know what URI schemes the Forgejo instance supports as Website links (e.g. gemini:// URLs).
This MUST NOT merge before #12962. To do so would introduce a regression wherein the UI may suggest and validate a different set of allowed URL schemes than the server actually permits.
See also #5519
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12991
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Turns out this was a one-line fix for each affected field (change the binding from `ValidUrl` to `ValidSiteUrl`), but the tests are rather verbose. The tests are, however, each a simple flow of Create Thing > Try HTTP Website > Try Different Website (notice failure) > Try Different Website With New Config (notice success). I wrote this PR by adding failing tests first, then making the change, for each affected field.
Not sure if this should be "feat:" or "fix:" tbh. I figured "fix:" for this PR since IMO the expected behavior is for `VALID_SITE_URL_SCHEMES` to apply in each of these cases, not only for user profiles via the UI form. (Later changed to "feat:" at @limiting-factor's suggestion, based on the observation that this change extends documented behavior.)
This PR deals with the server-side validation only. #12991 covers client-side validation (deriving a `pattern` attribute from `VALID_SITE_URL_SCHEMES`, etc.)
Closes#5519
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12962
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@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>
Attempt to address #11705 and #11028.
The docker container runs gitea by default: 1d12151086/docker/root/etc/s6/gitea/run
Whereas a user might run `forgejo doctor ...` (which is symlinked to gitea).
So the doctor expects a different value for the authorized_keys command.
This fix does the opposite of syncAppConfForGit: it fetches the `AppPath` from the database to ensure it is the same as forgejo:
1d12151086/routers/init.go (L76-L87)
### Testing
1. Make a symlink called `forgejo`, pointing to gitea `ln -s gitea forgejo`
2. Run `./gitea` and add a ssh key to a user
3. Stop `./gitea`
4. Run `./forgejo doctor check --run authorized-keys`
Without this fix, the last command should fail.
With the fix, the last command should succeed and print:
```
- [I] AppPath changed from '/home/forgejo/forgejo' to '/home/forgejo/gitea'
```
- 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/12901
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
I added sentinel error values for jobs not being found and no jobs being updated by the `CreateTaskForRunner` function. This avoids the nilnil antipattern and allows the nilnil lint to be enabled for the `models/actions/task.go` file again.
The handling of these new errors was added to the `PickTask` function in `services/actions/task.go`.
Related issue: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11261
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12768
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@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>
First, why was this header here in the first place? Cloudflare!
Cloudflare had a optimization setting called "auto-minfy" and would
minify HTML,JS,CSS - this included removing extra whitespaces from
`<code>` elements. That's a problem because files are shown per-line
with a `<code>` element and thus results in indentation being completely
gone. Gitea added a FAQ entry for this [1], but on the same day decided
to add the workaround in Gitea, the `no-transform` header [2].
I can't find a reference of this option and some posts suggests it's
been removed. Thus it no longer serves a need to be present in Forgejo.
That wasn't my intentional motivation to remove this. This header is
also causing that HAProxy will not compress responses [3] from Forgejo
which is not ideal for Codeberg, this behavior cannot be turned off or
be worked around.
Potential risk, some other CDN or some other Cloudflare option might
still do this removal of whitespace in `<code>` HTML tags, it seems
better to disable the feature than to have Forgejo add a header which is
also causing other side-effects. I'm not aware of this another CDN of
Cloudflare option so I don't want to mark it as breaking.
[1]: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/20430
[2]: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/20432
[3]: https://docs.haproxy.org/3.3/configuration.html#:~:text=the%20response%20contains%20the%20%22no-transform%22%20value%20in%20the%20%22Cache-control%22%20%20%20%20%20header
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12905
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
`TestAPIAuthWithAuthorizedIntegration` has [occasionally failed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/166572/jobs/8/attempt/1#jobstep-4-2101) in the integration test steps with the unexpected output `authorized integration: parse JWT error: token is unverifiable: error while executing keyfunc: no key identified`. This indicates that the authorized integration being tested was fully validated until the JWT signature, but the signature was not accessible from the JWKS remote, which is hosted within the integration test. This doesn't seem to make sense to me.
This PR extends "no key identified" to indicate what key came from the JWT, and what keys were present in the JWKS file, so that I can see why they're not matching. This information could be generally useful in a 401 error when trying to understand authorized integration failures and doesn't pose a security risk as the keys are public information.
## 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/12903
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#12436
Uppercase the token before verification as verification is case-sensitive. Some mail clients might've lower cased.
Co-authored-by: Abidos <abdullah.sowilah@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12460
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@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>
When an individual job is rerun, the run it belongs to has to be kept in sync. For example, the timestamps when the run was started and stopped have to be adjusted accordingly. That didn't happen since https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12141 because the functionality was accidentally omitted.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12818
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
When a single Forgejo Actions job should be rerun, its dependent jobs (those that have the job to be rerun in their `needs:`) might still be running. That means they cannot be rerun. Currently, Forgejo ignores and simply skips them. But that is wrong: their outcome is meaningless at best and wrong at worst because it depends on an outdated attempt of the job to be rerun. This is remedied by cancelling them before queueing them for a rerun, too.
Follow-up of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12141.
## 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12756
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
A handful of routes, described in this PR as "mixed routes", are currently accessible by both web-based sessions and authenticated API users. The goal of this PR is to allow access to these routes for Authorized Integrations as well, bringing them to full API compatibility (to my knowledge) with other authentication methods. These routes are impacted:
- `/{username}/{repo}/raw/*`
- `/{username}/{repo}/archive/*`
- `/{username}/{repo}/releases/download/{vTag}/{fileName}`
- `/{username}/{repo}/attachments/{uuid}`
- `/attachments/{uuid}`
The major work in this PR was to refactoring the existing authentication methods so that "path based matching" that they were currently doing was no longer required, as I didn't want to introduce that into Authorized Integrations. All the path based matching is removed in this PR, and authentication methods are enabled entirely by the middleware applied to their endpoints.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12776
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
The goal is to enable access to Git LFS resources with Authorized Integrations JWTs.
Blocker that needed to be resolved is that adding the `AuthorizedIntegration` auth method would conflict with the LFS tokens, which are handed out during git ssh clones to allow access to LFS resources -- `AuthorizedIntegration` would mark these as `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential`, and therefore the requests would 401 before they got to the LFS-specific token validation routines. The fix is to move LFS token authentication into an authentication group so that it could be resolved at the same time as the authorized integration, rather than doing it inside the LFS server routines.
Refactors for LFS tokens are covered by refreshed test automation. Authorized integrations LFS Access has been manually tested, and will be further covered in an end-to-end integration test (https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1954).
## 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...
- [ ] `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/12725
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Load the primary language of the repository when it's converted to a API struct. This is simpler than adding `LoadAttributes` to a lot of places.
Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#12729
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12737
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
These are by the far the longest time spent on during a migration.
Indicate the progress of how many issues and PRs were migrated so far.
Don't overwhelm the messenger, so they are only updated once a batch is
migrated. Which is "slow" enough to see it's not stuck and still doing work.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12738
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμίλια Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Follow-up to the previously closed#12437; verifies git LFS quotas are checked against the repository owner not the current actor.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12755): <!--number 12755 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Y2hlY2sgcXVvdGEgaW4gTEZTIHVwbG9hZHMgYWdhaW5zdCB0aGUgcmVwb3NpdG9yeSBvd25lciwgbm90IG9wZXJhdGluZyB1c2Vy-->check quota in LFS uploads against the repository owner, not operating user<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12755
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. 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...
- [ ] `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.
Closes#4517
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11704): <!--number 11704 --><!--line 0 --><!--description VXBkYXRlIE1pY3Jvc29mdCBUZWFtcyB3ZWJob29rIHRvIHVzZSBBZGFwdGl2ZUNhcmQ=-->Update Microsoft Teams webhook to use AdaptiveCard<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11704
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
During workflow expansion, jobs are replaced or added. That means that their execution order does not necessarily match the order of their numeric IDs. For example, job 129 might depend on job 130. Unfortunately, Forgejo doesn't take this possibility into account and always examines and updates jobs by ascending ID. That means that while examining job 129, job 130 has still its old status, and, as a result, Forgejo won't schedule job 129 for execution because it's still waiting for job 130 to complete. This can lead to workflows getting stuck:
```
...tions/job_emitter.go:48:jobEmitterQueueHandler() [E] checkJobsOfRun failed for RunID = 49: error in tryHandleIncompleteMatrix: jobStatusResolver attempted to tryHandleIncompleteMatrix for a job (id=129) with an incomplete 'needs' job (id=130)
```
This is caused by calculating all status changes recursively in memory before writing them to the database. For example, job A that was completed would unblock job B that depended on it. In that case, Forgejo would simultaneously mark job A as completed and B as waiting. However, that would not work if B had a lower ID than A. That is remedied by writing updates to the database before entering the next recursion. So, continuing the example, job A is marked as completed in the database before the next iteration detects that B is no longer blocked and writes that to the database.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12641.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [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/12685
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
closes#10451
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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/12643): <!--number 12643 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmV0dXJuIEFQSSBVUkwgaW4gdGhlIGB1cmxgIGZpZWxkIGZvciBwdWxsIHJlcXVlc3RzIHVzaW5nIHRoZSBBUEk=-->return API URL in the `url` field for pull requests using the API<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12643
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Currently, Forgejo supports configuring static group team mappings for
an OIDC authentication source that map OIDC groups to Forgejo
organizations and teams. For example, the following mapping
```json
{"Developer": {"MyForgejoOrganization": ["MyForgejoTeam1", "MyForgejoTeam2"]}}
```
automatically adds a user in the OIDC group `Developer` to the teams
`MyForgejoTeam1` and `MyForgejoTeam2` in organization
`MyForgejoOrganization`.
In order to support more dynamic mappings and to avoid having to update
the mappings for new organizations and teams, add an additional
configuration option that supports mappings with placeholders like in
the following example:
```json
["group-{org}-{team}", "other:{org}/{team}"]
```
In this example, the mappings add a user in OIDC groups
`group-org1-team1`, `group-org2-team2`, and `other:org3/team3` to team
`team1` in organization `org1`, team `team2` in organization `org2`, and
to team `team3` in organization `org3`.
Additionally, this adds a configuration option to dynamically remove
users from organization teams. If enabled, a user is removed from all
teams that are not added via a static or dynamic mapping. Thus, users
are only in teams that are added via such a mapping and no other teams.
Docs: forgejo/docs!1950
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11656
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
The original issue only mentions 'Verified', but 'Updated' was also
missing and so is also included.
The integration test only covers the initial `false` state. Attempting
to cover the flip to true seemed to introduce more problems than
benefits (as outlined in `tests/integration/api_keys_test.go`)
Manual testing was performed to check that verifying the key in the web
ui caused the return value to change from false to true in the API
response (using `curl`).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [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/12625
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Extends the UI introduced in #12558 to have edit capabilities. (not in scope: "Add" for a new Authorized Integration will be the next update to this UI; `create-authorized-integration` CLI is still the only way to create a new record)
This PR includes a few refactoring steps. The goal of these steps is to have `services/auth` be a single entrypoint for validating, inserting, or updating an authorized integration. Some logic is moved out of `services/authz` because it is not authorization related, and some is moved out of `services/auth/method` to allow it to be reused during validation without creating a cyclical module dependency.
This PR also adds comprehensive validation to the more complex fields in the authorized integration, such as the issuer and claim rules. This validation applies to the `forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration` CLI as well.
The visible UI is the same as #12558, but with a "Save" button, and the ability to display errors:
## 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
### Tests for JavaScript changes
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### 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.
- Documentation is on my TODO list and will be completed before release.
### 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/12601
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
A separate commit status is introduced for skipped checks. That enables marking them as such in the UI instead of successful, which could be misleading.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/10138.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12606
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes#2325.
This introduces a way to download downsized versions of the user and repository avatars:
* `/avatars/123abcd` still serves the full-size avatar
* `/avatars/123abcd?size=64` serves it at size 64x64 px
Those downsized versions are computed on demand when requested for the first time and cached. The caching is done in a storage location configurable in the instance settings, just like the storage locations for the full-sized avatars are. The sizes of the downsized images are restricted to a fixed set of sizes, so that the cache doesn't grow too big. The caching and resizing logic is exposed in a way that could potentially be reused for other types of images (such as user uploads in issue discussions).
Luckily, the Go templates already specify in many places which size those avatars should be rendered, even if this information was only used for external avatar providers (such as Gravatar) until now.
The range of sizes requested by the HTML templates is rather wide: the table below lists all the sizes I could find, and the corresponding size served by the backend with the logic I implemented. The scaling factor of 2 was already used for requesting resized external avatars, and likely exists to make sure that users with display scaling enabled get a sharper picture.
| Size requested in the template | After scaling (x2) | Size of the image served |
|---------|---------|---------|
| 256 px | 512 px | original (512 px) |
| 140 px | 280 px | original (512 px) |
| 48 px | 96 px | 128 px |
| 40 px | 80 px | 128 px |
| 32 px | 64 px | 64 px |
| 28 px | 56 px | 64 px |
| 24 px | 48 px | 64 px |
| 20 px | 40 px | 64 px |
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11242
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@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
The session cookie has no Max-Age, so it is lost when the browser closes. The password flow compensates via a "Remember me" checkbox issuing an LTA cookie; OAuth2/OIDC sign-in had no such UI.
Issuing a regular LTA cookie after an OAuth callback would skip the IdP for LOGIN_REMEMBER_DAYS. Instead, this introduces a separate LongTermAuthorizationSSO purpose: the cookie is opt-in via the existing "Remember me" checkbox, and when presented without a session, autoSignIn redirects through the IdP with OIDC prompt=none for silent re-auth. On login_required / interaction_required / consent_required / account_selection_required
we transparently fall back to interactive sign-in.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12321
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
