I removed the empty `p` elements for accessibility as mentioned in this https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12786#issuecomment-16247117. I also adjusted the spacing for the "reference" text with the divider to have the copy button have the same spacing as other buttons.
## Testing
Navigate to an issue and observe the spacing of the time tracker, reference and dependencies sections.
<table style="width:100%">
<tr>
<td>Before</td>
<td>After</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img width="250" src="/attachments/a4e14050-1d14-457c-9d4f-ec9ac1ae3bcc" /></td>
<td><img width="250" src="/attachments/3ab4445c-9f14-49d7-ac77-a7d69e914e58" /></td>
</tr>
</table>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12864
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Some minor changes: coherent distances between heading and descriptions, drop a divider between time tracking related sections.
### Test
1. Go to an issue, add some time tracking and potentially dependencies.
2. Observe improved distances with a user with and once with a user without write permission.
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/12786
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
This
1. hides the “New issue” button, which currently leads to a 404 page, because it is not useful to have it, e.g., here: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/act/issues/169
2. removes the UI ability on projects in archived repos to move around issues and project columns. When a user performs such an action, currently it is shown as it were successful, but actually all requests lead to 404s without warning.
3. hides the hints for synching a fork or creating a pull request for recently pushed branches (which again would lead to 404s)
4. hides the branch selector (only shows the branch) on single issue/PR pages, which is disfunctional on archived repos
Thus, both these changes do not change anything related to what happens to issues or projects in archived repos, but only reduces 404 errors.
I don’t think this needs to be tested more than manually.
## Test
Create first a repository with at least **one issue** in **one project** and edit a file by creating a **new branch**. Then, perform following actions, once in the state where the repository is normal and once when it is archived:
action|unarchived|archived
---|---|---
\1. go to the issue|“New issue” button functional|“New issue” button removed
\2. click on the branch selector|menu opens|menu is now disabled and shows the branch
\3. go to the project|“New issue” button functional|“New issue” button removed
\4. try to move around columns|modifies columns|not possible anymore
\5. try to move around the issue|modifies issue location|not possible anymore
\6. go to the code view|see hint "You pushed …"|do not see this hint anymore
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12773
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
For the same reason the merge box is displayed when the user can delete the branch from which the pull request was proposed, the trust panel must be displayed when runs are waiting approval, either for information or to approve/deny runs from untrusted users.
Closesforgejo/forgejo#12576
---
Note that since this is a followup of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12704/files and it has not yet been released, there is no need for a mention in the release notes.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12785
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
When the status of a user makes it implicitly trusted to run actions (for instance when it becomes a member of the Owners team of an organization), the runs that were blocked before they became trusted will need to be approved or denied.
The trust management panel was not displayed if the poster of the pull request was trusted. It is now displayed regardless of the current trust status of the user.
Closesforgejo/forgejo#12811
---
## Alternative implementation
An alternative implementation would be to approve all pending runs whenever the trust status of a user changes. That would require that change to happen when the user joins a team with permissions to run actions, becomes an admin, a collaborator to a repository with write access or when a repository ownership is transferred to an organization where the user already has such rights.
Such an implementation would save the effort of manually taking care of the runs pending approval for the now trusted user. But it would also be fragile to maintain because it would need a complete inventory of all the ways a user can become trusted. Or some kind of notification triggered whenever such an event happens, which is not currently in place.
Since this is a rare case and the manual operation is simple, I think the easiest fix consisting of showing the trust panel regardless of the trust status of the user is acceptable.
## Lingering rows in `ActionUser`
If a newly trusted user is explicitly always trusted **after** being implicitly trusted, a row is created in `ActionUser`. But the `Revoke` button will never show, because the user is now implicitly trusted. This leaves a lingering row in the `ActionUser` table. Such a row will be [removed](!9397 (commit e41bcf5048)) eventually and not clutter the table.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- User Interface bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12812): <!--number 12812 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4OiBzaG93IHRoZSBhY3Rpb25zIHRydXN0IG1hbmFnZW1lbnQgcGFuZWwgd2hlbiBydW5zIGZyb20gdHJ1c3RlZCB1c2VycyBhcmUgcGVuZGluZyBhcHByb3ZhbA==-->fix: show the actions trust management panel when runs from trusted users are pending approval<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12812
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Closes#11859🙂
Wanted to be able to grab action logs from my homelab dashboard without juggling session cookies. Two endpoints so scripts and webhooks can pull logs without scraping the rendered UI:
- `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/jobs/{job_id}/logs` returns plaintext for a single job's latest task. The underlying reader is `io.ReadSeekCloser`, so passing it through `http.ServeContent` gives you HTTP `Range:` for free.
- `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/logs` streams a zip of every job's logs in the run. If a job hasn't started (`TaskID == 0`), its log expired, or opening the log file fails, the zip gets a `.MISSING` placeholder entry rather than bailing on the whole archive.
Both endpoints get `reqToken()` per-route. Logs can have secrets accidentally echoed into them, so I wanted auth required even though the outer `/repos` group's `tokenRequiresScopes(AccessTokenScopeCategoryRepository)` already covers scope.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. (`tests/integration/api_actions_job_logs_test.go`, `tests/integration/api_actions_run_logs_test.go`)
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it. (The new endpoints are covered by the regenerated swagger spec in this PR; `docs/user/api-usage.md` is general auth/usage guidance and doesn't need changes. Happy to open a docs PR if reviewers prefer.)
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Release note added as `release-notes/12666.md`.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12666
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Following the feedback in #12565, this adds a hint to the units page when the "Enable more" hint is enabled:
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12747
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This endpoint returns the Actions run metadata for the automatic token, making it possible for external services to authenticate a specific workflow run and understand its security context (e.g. whether it is a pull request run and if yes what pull request it is).
The concrete motivating case for this feature is safe pull request preview rendering. Currently, even Forgejo itself ([forgejo/docs](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/src/branch/next/.forgejo/workflows/pr.yml), [forgejo/website](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/src/branch/main/.forgejo/workflows/pr.yml)) uses carefully managed `pull_request_target` workflows for this task. The `pull_request_target` workflow type coupled with intentionally cloning the merge head is widely recognized as insecure, including by Forgejo developers. However, right now there is no particularly good replacement for this approach: Forgejo doesn't expose enough metadata to grant an Actions run permissions to update a part of a website, and only that part (by whichever mechanism this would happen).
I am one of the developers of [git-pages](https://codeberg.org/git-pages/git-pages), which is used as the new Codeberg Pages backend. I would like to implement native support for pull request previews that does not rely on carefully written but still fragile workflows that try to hide authorization tokens from untrusted code, but rather recognizes "pull request Actions run" as a unique kind of security context, and allow it to publish to a special "preview zone", segregated by the repository name and PR number. To do this I need to be able to authorize a specific workflow run. Right now there's no reasonable way to do this, but with the new endpoint it becomes trivial: actions/git-pages passes the automatic token to git-pages, git-pages asks Forgejo for metadata then forms an authorized site URL (e.g. `http://<reponame>-<username>-pr-<number>.preview.codeberg.page` though this is not the final format) to which this PR workflow may upload a site.
The API endpoint implemented in this PR has been discussed in the Matrix room and I understood that this change would be uncontroversial, hence I'm sending this PR right away instead of opening a feature request first. It doesn't introduce new response types, only returns an `ActionRun` for the authorization token. The namespaced URL `/api/v1/actions/run` was chosen because there are a number of things one could conceivably want to retrieve (e.g. `/api/v1/actions/job`); this specific endpoint seems by far the most useful though.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
The new API endpint is surfaced in Swagger, which seems sufficient.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12727
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
* remove two unused strings I identified while doing other things
* update two strings per request of @mahlzahn while avoiding a whole separate PR for this
* move 126 strings to JSON, some are remapped with a better structure
* previous migration: forgejo/forgejo!12280
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12718
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
It is possible for a user that is not trusted to run Forgejo Actions workflows on a repository to act on a pull request and trigger a workflow after it is merged or closed. For instance by modifying the title of the pull request or setting a label.
Closesforgejo/forgejo#12576
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- User Interface bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12704): <!--number 12704 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZGlzcGxheSB0aGUgYWN0aW9ucyB0cnVzdCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IHBhbmVsIG9uIG1lcmdlZCBhbmQgY2xvc2VkIHB1bGwgcmVxdWVzdHM=-->display the actions trust management panel on merged and closed pull requests<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12704
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Extracts the separate concepts for different UIs out of the original implementation, and then adds the new UI for Forgejo Actions (Local). Manual end-to-end testing was performed on all variations of the "workflow file", "git reference", and "event" filter options as well. They're covered by test automation, but not in an end-to-end manner.
## 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 next up after this change is complete.
### 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/12672
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
This fixes#12548. I used the `RenderRefIssueTitle` function so it wouldn't create issue or PR links from #<number> strings.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12644
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
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>
When it was introduced the route did receive for which entries it should get the last commit for. It was refactored in 1e29bccddb to HTMX and now simply gets the last commit for all entries.
In the spirit of using the correct HTTP methods, switch it to GET.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12670
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Example for how that would look like on code.forgejo.org:
Login screen examples:
|||
|-|-|
Many instances would benefit from being able to communicate such information before a user signs up or logs in after a long break.
## Testing
Disabled unless admin explicitly decides to create a template override, nothing to test.
In theory CSS could break but IDK how to test against that given the custom template requirement.
Also need to know that template customizations are provided as-is and shift all accountability of maintaining them to admins.
## Documentation
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls/1945
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12597
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
A concern has been raised to the security team that Forgejo users can be confused by the visibility of packages in Forgejo being linked to the owner of the package, and not the repository that a package may be linked to. While future feature requests may change how package visibility works, an immediately actionable response is to ensure that this is clearer to end-users.
This PR adds a warning on the Settings -> Unit page of a private repository, and the Packages tab of a private repository, if the owner of the repository is public. It also renames the unit "Enable repository package registry" to "Enable package linking", to better reflect the fact that enabling packages on a repository does not create some repository-level registry.
**Before**:
**After**:
**On repository's Packages tab**:
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [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/12627
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
Following the previous contribution that added admin-level management of user access tokens (particularly useful for bot/service accounts), this change exposes the created_at field in the API response when listing or retrieving access tokens.
This information is needed to implement token rotation policies for these users — knowing when a token was created allows administrators to identify and revoke stale tokens.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [X] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [X] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12620): <!--number 12620 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZXhwb3NlIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbiBjcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlIGluIEFQSSByZXNwb25zZXM=-->expose access token creation date in API responses<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12620
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
This fixes#12119 while simplifying the page a bit.
It also drops dependency on `/web_src/css/modules/card.css` module. Only the profile page still relies on it.
As an observation, I find the text "Please click the button below..." quite inadequate as web copy, but I decided to keep it as-is in this pull request.
In the `org.css` changes, I also removed references to two `.organization.invite #invite-box` selectors, since I couldn't find it anywhere in the source code.
Screenshot:
## 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...
- [ ] `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/12580
Reviewed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <wetneb@noreply.codeberg.org>
Adds a "Delete" option to the authorized integration list.
## 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
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12632
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@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 work completed in #12601 to enable creating new authorized integrations in the web UI. This UI is identical to the edit experience, except: "Audience" is only presented once the object is saved, "Save authorized integration is changed to "Create authorized integration", and performing the create redirects to the completed object to access the audience rather than redirecting the list page.
A drop-down menu is used for the "UI" of the new authorized integration, even though only the generic "write your own rule" UI is currently implemented.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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)).
- e2e tests here are for complete experience, but aren't for "JavaScript changes" as noted here.
### 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 coming soon.
### 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/12613
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@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>
When you hover over the link:
This PR:
Fixes#9413
## Testing
1. Go to any issuelist with at least one issue.
2. Hover the cursor over the link, which contains a `#` followed by the issue number.
3. Observe, where the link ends, by seeing what gets underlined.
4. Notice, that this includes the space after the issue number without this PR, but not with this PR.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12591
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
# Feature Request: Admin API route to manage access tokens for any user
## Problem
The existing API route to create access tokens (POST /api/v1/users/{username}/tokens) requires Basic authentication (username + password) via the reqBasicOrRevProxyAuth() middleware. This is by design: a token should not be created from another token.
However, this creates a blocker for environments where Basic authentication is disabled (ENABLE_BASIC_AUTHENTICATION = false), typically when authentication is delegated to an external SSO provider (e.g., OpenID Connect).
In such setups, bot/service accounts are provisioned by an external system that needs to:
Create a user via POST /api/v1/admin/users (works fine with an admin token)
Create an access token for that user (currently impossible without Basic auth or direct CLI/DB access)
The only workaround today is to SSH into the Forgejo server and run:
This is not suitable when the provisioning system has no direct access to the Forgejo host.
## Proposed solution
Add new admin-only API routes under the existing /api/v1/admin/users/{username} group to manage access tokens:
| Method | Route | Description |
|:-------- |:--------:| --------:|
| GET | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | List access tokens for a user|
|POST | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | Create an access token for a user|
|DELETE | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens/{id} | Delete an access token for a user|
These routes would:
Require a site admin token (reqToken() + reqSiteAdmin()) — no Basic auth needed
Use the AccessTokenScopeCategoryAdmin token scope
Reuse the existing handler logic from user.CreateAccessToken / user.ListAccessTokens / user.DeleteAccessToken
Accept the same request/response payloads as the existing user-facing routes
### Why this belongs in the admin API
It follows the existing pattern: admins can already create users, repos, orgs, SSH keys, and emails for any user via the admin API
It does not weaken security: only site administrators can call it, and it requires a valid admin-scoped token
It fills a gap: the admin CLI command forgejo admin user generate-access-token already provides this capability, but only locally
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323): <!--number 12323 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZmVhdChhcGkpOiBhZGQgYWRtaW4gcm91dGVzIHRvIG1hbmFnZSB1c2VyIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnM=-->feat(api): add admin routes to manage user access tokens<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Add the ability to remove workflow runs, either using the UI or the HTTP API. Workflow runs can only be removed once a workflow run has completed. For security reasons, only a repository administrator or a token with `write:repository` permissions can remove runs.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2184.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12478): <!--number 12478 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bWFrZSBpdCBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byByZW1vdmUgd29ya2Zsb3cgcnVucw==-->make it possible to remove workflow runs<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12478
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fairly new to Forgejo but I just ran into this when trying to create a couple repositories.
I noticed that the input field for the repository name in several areas of the UI is prone to have annoying auto-capitalization, spellchecking and other browser features which try to correct the user input.
I as a user would like to not have the browser interfere with my input especially in dialogs where I want to have something "custom".
For fields where the repo name is used to validate an action (Danger Zone) this is even more frustrating.
So, to me, this is a quality of live improvement fix.
I checked the docs for these three attributes and none of them seem to have a negative side effect for the user:
1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Global_attributes/autocorrect
2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Global_attributes/autocapitalize
3. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Global_attributes/spellcheck
## List of URLs where this applies:
1. `/repo/migrate`
2. `/repo/create`
3. `/<user>/<repo slug>/settings`
4. In general things in the "Danger zone" section where the repo name is used to validate the action
5. …
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12506
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Include `run_id` in the responses emitted by all `...actions/runners/jobs` endpoints. Helps with correlating pending jobs with other jobs and the runs they belong to.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12480
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
The dialog element shrink wrap up to the max-width boundary. The
`long-modal` is set to strictly fit the `800px` width in the test.
However with Playwright minor font rendering differences makes the
dialog modal width resulting in `797px`.
Test fails at: [expect(width).toBe(800);](6132d0e406/tests/e2e/modal.test.e2e.ts (L103))
The fix is to increase the content of the `#long-model` element in
`templates/demo/model.tmpl` to 300 characters length instead of the
current `100` characters length ensures that the dialog modal will always
hit the `800px` max-width.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12469
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Allows user to assign organization projects to their new issues, using the project sidebar selector, even when repository's projects are disabled.
Moreover, the project sidebar selector is now hidden if no projects (repository-wide + organization-wide) are available.
Fixesforgejo/forgejo#5666
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7999
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Having tooltip only for `lfs_pointers.accessible` is fine in English, but not in other languages. For other languages the text is truncated.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12139
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
This idea is perhaps a bit more far-fetched. It implements the ability in `lint-locale-usage` to basically fully handle "printf" invocations by transforming format strings to regexps when "%" wildcards are present.
Currently, it doesn't cache the transformation from format string to compiled regex because this doesn't make a performance difference (yet), given that most of these wildcards are only hit once or twice.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12013
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Previous similar PR: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11879.
Moved strings from INI to JSON. Some directly, some with keys updated to be consistent. The latter was done carefully, making sure all usages are updated, and was tested locally.
There are more deletions than insertions because some languages also had some extra empty lines removed.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12280
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Unintentionally fixesforgejo/forgejo#11812 per tip https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12232#issuecomment-13580345
---
This is a second attempt to fix https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116. The [first attempt](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11846) introduced a [regression](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12082) and needed to be [reverted](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12088).
What's different about this attempt is that several days of extra work have been invested in amending the CSS to ensure that no visual changes slip through as a side-effect of the structural changes to the HTML. This was surprisingly challenging, and I documented much of the journey in https://codeberg.org/henrycatalinismith/forgejo/issues/1.
In summary, the existing version of the "latest commit" row leans heavily on global styles that are universally applied to all `thead` elements inside `table` elements with the `ui` and `table` classes. The nature of the structural HTML changes necessary to fix the accessibility bug (this row can't be inside `thead`) is such that those universal styles no longer apply to this element and must be duplicated into new element-specific styles. Similarly, existing styles applying to non-`thead` table content has unwanted effects on this element once it moves into the `tbody` which needed to be counteracted.
The original PR already lays out the accessibility impact of this pull request in a good amount of details and so instead I'm going to use the space here to focus on comparing the visuals in the `forgejo` branch with those in this PR. There follow a few pretty boring identical before & after screenshots that are pixel-for-pixel identical with each other. I don't think you'll be able to spot any bugs by glancing at these and am more sharing them to provide an insight into where my attention has been during testing: the 380px wide mobile viewport, a larger desktop viewport, and the "commit message too long to fit in the available space" case. If you know of other troublesome cases for this code that aren't covered by what you see in these images then that could be a good thing to explore here.
Before | After
-|-
 | 
 | 
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12232
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(not applicable — Go-only change)
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
## Summary
Add public REST API endpoints under `/api/v1/` for listing, inspecting, downloading, and deleting Actions artifacts. Previously, artifacts could only be accessed through the web UI or the internal runner API.
### New endpoints
| Method | Path | Description |
|--------|------|-------------|
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts` | List all artifacts for a repository |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/artifacts` | List artifacts for a workflow run |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Get artifact metadata |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip` | Download artifact as zip |
| `DELETE` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Delete an artifact |
- List endpoints support `page`, `limit`, and `name` query parameters
- Both v1-v3 (multi-file, zip on-the-fly) and v4 (single zip) artifact backends are supported
- Expired artifacts are listed with `expired: true` but cannot be downloaded
- Delete requires write permission; all other endpoints require read permission
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12140
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Co-committed-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Allow for filtering users with 2fa enabled as admin. So that it is easy to audit users' settings compliance with iso27001, etc.
Resolves#11800
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12091
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org>
