2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2014 The Gogs Authors. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
// Copyright 2019 The Gitea Authors. All rights reserved.
|
2022-11-27 13:20:29 -05:00
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
package method
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
2023-09-15 08:13:19 +02:00
|
|
|
"context"
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
"errors"
|
2021-01-05 21:05:40 +08:00
|
|
|
"net/http"
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
"slices"
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
"strings"
|
|
|
|
|
"time"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-27 19:40:14 +00:00
|
|
|
actions_model "forgejo.org/models/actions"
|
|
|
|
|
auth_model "forgejo.org/models/auth"
|
|
|
|
|
user_model "forgejo.org/models/user"
|
|
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/log"
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/optional"
|
2025-03-27 19:40:14 +00:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/setting"
|
2025-07-09 23:01:03 +02:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/util"
|
2025-03-27 19:40:14 +00:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/web/middleware"
|
|
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/services/actions"
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/services/auth"
|
2025-03-27 19:40:14 +00:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/services/auth/source/oauth2"
|
2026-02-15 13:06:19 -07:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/services/authz"
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Ensure the struct implements the interface.
|
|
|
|
|
var (
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
_ auth.Method = &OAuth2{}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
// grantAdditionalScopes returns valid scopes coming from grant
|
|
|
|
|
func grantAdditionalScopes(grantScopes string) string {
|
|
|
|
|
// scopes_supported from templates/user/auth/oidc_wellknown.tmpl
|
|
|
|
|
scopesSupported := []string{
|
|
|
|
|
"openid",
|
|
|
|
|
"profile",
|
|
|
|
|
"email",
|
|
|
|
|
"groups",
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var apiTokenScopes []string
|
2026-04-02 03:29:37 +02:00
|
|
|
for apiTokenScope := range strings.SplitSeq(grantScopes, " ") {
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
if slices.Index(scopesSupported, apiTokenScope) == -1 {
|
|
|
|
|
apiTokenScopes = append(apiTokenScopes, apiTokenScope)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if len(apiTokenScopes) == 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var additionalGrantScopes []string
|
|
|
|
|
allScopes := auth_model.AccessTokenScope("all")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, apiTokenScope := range apiTokenScopes {
|
|
|
|
|
grantScope := auth_model.AccessTokenScope(apiTokenScope)
|
|
|
|
|
if ok, _ := allScopes.HasScope(grantScope); ok {
|
|
|
|
|
additionalGrantScopes = append(additionalGrantScopes, apiTokenScope)
|
|
|
|
|
} else if apiTokenScope == "public-only" {
|
|
|
|
|
additionalGrantScopes = append(additionalGrantScopes, apiTokenScope)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if len(additionalGrantScopes) > 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return strings.Join(additionalGrantScopes, ",")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
// CheckOAuthAccessToken returns uid of user from oauth token
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
// + non default openid scopes requested
|
|
|
|
|
func CheckOAuthAccessToken(ctx context.Context, accessToken string) (int64, string) {
|
2024-11-12 13:33:35 -08:00
|
|
|
if !setting.OAuth2.Enabled {
|
|
|
|
|
return 0, ""
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
// JWT tokens require a "."
|
|
|
|
|
if !strings.Contains(accessToken, ".") {
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
return 0, ""
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2021-08-27 21:28:00 +02:00
|
|
|
token, err := oauth2.ParseToken(accessToken, oauth2.DefaultSigningKey)
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
2021-08-27 21:28:00 +02:00
|
|
|
log.Trace("oauth2.ParseToken: %v", err)
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
return 0, ""
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2022-08-25 10:31:57 +08:00
|
|
|
var grant *auth_model.OAuth2Grant
|
2023-09-15 08:13:19 +02:00
|
|
|
if grant, err = auth_model.GetOAuth2GrantByID(ctx, token.GrantID); err != nil || grant == nil {
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
return 0, ""
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2021-07-24 11:16:34 +01:00
|
|
|
if token.Type != oauth2.TypeAccessToken {
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
return 0, ""
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2022-01-20 21:52:56 +00:00
|
|
|
if token.ExpiresAt.Before(time.Now()) || token.IssuedAt.After(time.Now()) {
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
return 0, ""
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
grantScopes := grantAdditionalScopes(grant.Scope)
|
|
|
|
|
return grant.UserID, grantScopes
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-11-20 09:24:09 -06:00
|
|
|
// CheckTaskIsRunning verifies that the TaskID corresponds to a running task
|
|
|
|
|
func CheckTaskIsRunning(ctx context.Context, taskID int64) bool {
|
|
|
|
|
// Verify the task exists
|
|
|
|
|
task, err := actions_model.GetTaskByID(ctx, taskID)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Verify that it's running
|
|
|
|
|
return task.Status == actions_model.StatusRunning
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-10 01:53:16 +08:00
|
|
|
// OAuth2 implements the Auth interface and authenticates requests
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
// (API requests only) by looking for an OAuth token in query parameters or the
|
|
|
|
|
// "Authorization" header.
|
2022-01-20 18:46:10 +01:00
|
|
|
type OAuth2 struct{}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
// parseToken returns the token from request, and a boolean value
|
|
|
|
|
// representing whether the token exists or not
|
|
|
|
|
func parseToken(req *http.Request) (string, bool) {
|
2021-01-26 23:36:53 +08:00
|
|
|
_ = req.ParseForm()
|
2025-07-24 17:19:24 +02:00
|
|
|
if !setting.DisableQueryAuthToken {
|
|
|
|
|
// Check token.
|
|
|
|
|
if token := req.Form.Get("token"); token != "" {
|
|
|
|
|
return token, true
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
// Check access token.
|
|
|
|
|
if token := req.Form.Get("access_token"); token != "" {
|
|
|
|
|
return token, true
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
} else if req.Form.Get("token") != "" || req.Form.Get("access_token") != "" {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Warn("API token sent in query string but DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN=true")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2023-12-11 22:48:53 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
// check header token
|
|
|
|
|
if auHead := req.Header.Get("Authorization"); auHead != "" {
|
|
|
|
|
auths := strings.Fields(auHead)
|
2025-07-09 23:01:03 +02:00
|
|
|
if len(auths) == 2 && (util.ASCIIEqualFold(auths[0], "token") || util.ASCIIEqualFold(auths[0], "bearer")) {
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
return auths[1], true
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
return "", false
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
// userIDFromToken returns the user id corresponding to the OAuth token.
|
|
|
|
|
// It will set 'IsApiToken' to true if the token is an API token and
|
|
|
|
|
// set 'ApiTokenScope' to the scope of the access token
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
func (o *OAuth2) userIDFromToken(ctx context.Context, tokenSHA string) (auth.AuthenticationResult, error) {
|
2026-01-13 18:18:40 +01:00
|
|
|
if tokenSHA == "" {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return nil, auth_model.ErrAccessTokenEmpty{}
|
2026-01-13 18:18:40 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
// Let's see if token is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
if strings.Contains(tokenSHA, ".") {
|
2024-11-20 09:24:09 -06:00
|
|
|
// First attempt to decode an actions JWT, returning the actions user
|
|
|
|
|
if taskID, err := actions.TokenToTaskID(tokenSHA); err == nil {
|
|
|
|
|
if CheckTaskIsRunning(ctx, taskID) {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return &actionsTaskTokenAuthenticationResult{user: user_model.NewActionsUser(), taskID: taskID}, nil
|
2024-11-20 09:24:09 -06:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2024-11-20 09:24:09 -06:00
|
|
|
// Otherwise, check if this is an OAuth access token
|
|
|
|
|
uid, grantScopes := CheckOAuthAccessToken(ctx, tokenSHA)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
var accessTokenScope optional.Option[auth_model.AccessTokenScope]
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
if uid != 0 {
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
if grantScopes != "" {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
accessTokenScope = optional.Some(auth_model.AccessTokenScope(grantScopes))
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
} else {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
accessTokenScope = optional.Some(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeAll) // fallback to all
|
2024-07-11 11:12:51 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
user, err := user_model.GetPossibleUserByID(ctx, uid)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
if !user_model.IsErrUserNotExist(err) {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Error("GetUserByName: %v", err)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return &oAuth2JWTAuthenticationResult{user: user, scope: accessTokenScope}, nil
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-09-15 08:13:19 +02:00
|
|
|
t, err := auth_model.GetAccessTokenBySHA(ctx, tokenSHA)
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
Implement actions (#21937)
Close #13539.
Co-authored by: @lunny @appleboy @fuxiaohei and others.
Related projects:
- https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-def
- https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-go
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner
### Summary
The target of this PR is to bring a basic implementation of "Actions",
an internal CI/CD system of Gitea. That means even though it has been
merged, the state of the feature is **EXPERIMENTAL**, and please note
that:
- It is disabled by default;
- It shouldn't be used in a production environment currently;
- It shouldn't be used in a public Gitea instance currently;
- Breaking changes may be made before it's stable.
**Please comment on #13539 if you have any different product design
ideas**, all decisions reached there will be adopted here. But in this
PR, we don't talk about **naming, feature-creep or alternatives**.
### ⚠️ Breaking
`gitea-actions` will become a reserved user name. If a user with the
name already exists in the database, it is recommended to rename it.
### Some important reviews
- What is `DEFAULT_ACTIONS_URL` in `app.ini` for?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1055954954
- Why the api for runners is not under the normal `/api/v1` prefix?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1061173592
- Why DBFS?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1061301178
- Why ignore events triggered by `gitea-actions` bot?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1063254103
- Why there's no permission control for actions?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1090229868
### What it looks like
<details>
#### Manage runners
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205870657-c72f590e-2e08-4cd4-be7f-2e0abb299bbf.png">
#### List runs
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205872794-50fde990-2b45-48c1-a178-908e4ec5b627.png">
#### View logs
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205872501-9b7b9000-9542-4991-8f55-18ccdada77c3.png">
</details>
### How to try it
<details>
#### 1. Start Gitea
Clone this branch and [install from
source](https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/install-from-source).
Add additional configurations in `app.ini` to enable Actions:
```ini
[actions]
ENABLED = true
```
Start it.
If all is well, you'll see the management page of runners:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205877365-8e30a780-9b10-4154-b3e8-ee6c3cb35a59.png">
#### 2. Start runner
Clone the [act_runner](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner), and follow
the
[README](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/src/branch/main/README.md)
to start it.
If all is well, you'll see a new runner has been added:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205878000-216f5937-e696-470d-b66c-8473987d91c3.png">
#### 3. Enable actions for a repo
Create a new repo or open an existing one, check the `Actions` checkbox
in settings and submit.
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205879705-53e09208-73c0-4b3e-a123-2dcf9aba4b9c.png">
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205879383-23f3d08f-1a85-41dd-a8b3-54e2ee6453e8.png">
If all is well, you'll see a new tab "Actions":
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205881648-a8072d8c-5803-4d76-b8a8-9b2fb49516c1.png">
#### 4. Upload workflow files
Upload some workflow files to `.gitea/workflows/xxx.yaml`, you can
follow the [quickstart](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/quickstart)
of GitHub Actions. Yes, Gitea Actions is compatible with GitHub Actions
in most cases, you can use the same demo:
```yaml
name: GitHub Actions Demo
run-name: ${{ github.actor }} is testing out GitHub Actions 🚀
on: [push]
jobs:
Explore-GitHub-Actions:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- run: echo "🎉 The job was automatically triggered by a ${{ github.event_name }} event."
- run: echo "🐧 This job is now running on a ${{ runner.os }} server hosted by GitHub!"
- run: echo "🔎 The name of your branch is ${{ github.ref }} and your repository is ${{ github.repository }}."
- name: Check out repository code
uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: echo "💡 The ${{ github.repository }} repository has been cloned to the runner."
- run: echo "🖥️ The workflow is now ready to test your code on the runner."
- name: List files in the repository
run: |
ls ${{ github.workspace }}
- run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
```
If all is well, you'll see a new run in `Actions` tab:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205884473-79a874bc-171b-4aaf-acd5-0241a45c3b53.png">
#### 5. Check the logs of jobs
Click a run and you'll see the logs:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205884800-994b0374-67f7-48ff-be9a-4c53f3141547.png">
#### 6. Go on
You can try more examples in [the
documents](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions)
of GitHub Actions, then you might find a lot of bugs.
Come on, PRs are welcome.
</details>
See also: [Feature Preview: Gitea
Actions](https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/)
---------
Co-authored-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: ChristopherHX <christopher.homberger@web.de>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
2023-01-31 09:45:19 +08:00
|
|
|
if auth_model.IsErrAccessTokenNotExist(err) {
|
|
|
|
|
// check task token
|
2023-09-15 08:13:19 +02:00
|
|
|
task, err := actions_model.GetRunningTaskByToken(ctx, tokenSHA)
|
Implement actions (#21937)
Close #13539.
Co-authored by: @lunny @appleboy @fuxiaohei and others.
Related projects:
- https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-def
- https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-go
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner
### Summary
The target of this PR is to bring a basic implementation of "Actions",
an internal CI/CD system of Gitea. That means even though it has been
merged, the state of the feature is **EXPERIMENTAL**, and please note
that:
- It is disabled by default;
- It shouldn't be used in a production environment currently;
- It shouldn't be used in a public Gitea instance currently;
- Breaking changes may be made before it's stable.
**Please comment on #13539 if you have any different product design
ideas**, all decisions reached there will be adopted here. But in this
PR, we don't talk about **naming, feature-creep or alternatives**.
### ⚠️ Breaking
`gitea-actions` will become a reserved user name. If a user with the
name already exists in the database, it is recommended to rename it.
### Some important reviews
- What is `DEFAULT_ACTIONS_URL` in `app.ini` for?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1055954954
- Why the api for runners is not under the normal `/api/v1` prefix?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1061173592
- Why DBFS?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1061301178
- Why ignore events triggered by `gitea-actions` bot?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1063254103
- Why there's no permission control for actions?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1090229868
### What it looks like
<details>
#### Manage runners
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205870657-c72f590e-2e08-4cd4-be7f-2e0abb299bbf.png">
#### List runs
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205872794-50fde990-2b45-48c1-a178-908e4ec5b627.png">
#### View logs
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205872501-9b7b9000-9542-4991-8f55-18ccdada77c3.png">
</details>
### How to try it
<details>
#### 1. Start Gitea
Clone this branch and [install from
source](https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/install-from-source).
Add additional configurations in `app.ini` to enable Actions:
```ini
[actions]
ENABLED = true
```
Start it.
If all is well, you'll see the management page of runners:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205877365-8e30a780-9b10-4154-b3e8-ee6c3cb35a59.png">
#### 2. Start runner
Clone the [act_runner](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner), and follow
the
[README](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/src/branch/main/README.md)
to start it.
If all is well, you'll see a new runner has been added:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205878000-216f5937-e696-470d-b66c-8473987d91c3.png">
#### 3. Enable actions for a repo
Create a new repo or open an existing one, check the `Actions` checkbox
in settings and submit.
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205879705-53e09208-73c0-4b3e-a123-2dcf9aba4b9c.png">
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205879383-23f3d08f-1a85-41dd-a8b3-54e2ee6453e8.png">
If all is well, you'll see a new tab "Actions":
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205881648-a8072d8c-5803-4d76-b8a8-9b2fb49516c1.png">
#### 4. Upload workflow files
Upload some workflow files to `.gitea/workflows/xxx.yaml`, you can
follow the [quickstart](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/quickstart)
of GitHub Actions. Yes, Gitea Actions is compatible with GitHub Actions
in most cases, you can use the same demo:
```yaml
name: GitHub Actions Demo
run-name: ${{ github.actor }} is testing out GitHub Actions 🚀
on: [push]
jobs:
Explore-GitHub-Actions:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- run: echo "🎉 The job was automatically triggered by a ${{ github.event_name }} event."
- run: echo "🐧 This job is now running on a ${{ runner.os }} server hosted by GitHub!"
- run: echo "🔎 The name of your branch is ${{ github.ref }} and your repository is ${{ github.repository }}."
- name: Check out repository code
uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: echo "💡 The ${{ github.repository }} repository has been cloned to the runner."
- run: echo "🖥️ The workflow is now ready to test your code on the runner."
- name: List files in the repository
run: |
ls ${{ github.workspace }}
- run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
```
If all is well, you'll see a new run in `Actions` tab:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205884473-79a874bc-171b-4aaf-acd5-0241a45c3b53.png">
#### 5. Check the logs of jobs
Click a run and you'll see the logs:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205884800-994b0374-67f7-48ff-be9a-4c53f3141547.png">
#### 6. Go on
You can try more examples in [the
documents](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions)
of GitHub Actions, then you might find a lot of bugs.
Come on, PRs are welcome.
</details>
See also: [Feature Preview: Gitea
Actions](https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/)
---------
Co-authored-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: ChristopherHX <christopher.homberger@web.de>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
2023-01-31 09:45:19 +08:00
|
|
|
if err == nil && task != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Trace("Basic Authorization: Valid AccessToken for task[%d]", task.ID)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return &actionsTaskTokenAuthenticationResult{user: user_model.NewActionsUser(), taskID: task.ID}, nil
|
Implement actions (#21937)
Close #13539.
Co-authored by: @lunny @appleboy @fuxiaohei and others.
Related projects:
- https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-def
- https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-go
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner
### Summary
The target of this PR is to bring a basic implementation of "Actions",
an internal CI/CD system of Gitea. That means even though it has been
merged, the state of the feature is **EXPERIMENTAL**, and please note
that:
- It is disabled by default;
- It shouldn't be used in a production environment currently;
- It shouldn't be used in a public Gitea instance currently;
- Breaking changes may be made before it's stable.
**Please comment on #13539 if you have any different product design
ideas**, all decisions reached there will be adopted here. But in this
PR, we don't talk about **naming, feature-creep or alternatives**.
### ⚠️ Breaking
`gitea-actions` will become a reserved user name. If a user with the
name already exists in the database, it is recommended to rename it.
### Some important reviews
- What is `DEFAULT_ACTIONS_URL` in `app.ini` for?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1055954954
- Why the api for runners is not under the normal `/api/v1` prefix?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1061173592
- Why DBFS?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1061301178
- Why ignore events triggered by `gitea-actions` bot?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1063254103
- Why there's no permission control for actions?
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21937#discussion_r1090229868
### What it looks like
<details>
#### Manage runners
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205870657-c72f590e-2e08-4cd4-be7f-2e0abb299bbf.png">
#### List runs
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205872794-50fde990-2b45-48c1-a178-908e4ec5b627.png">
#### View logs
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205872501-9b7b9000-9542-4991-8f55-18ccdada77c3.png">
</details>
### How to try it
<details>
#### 1. Start Gitea
Clone this branch and [install from
source](https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/install-from-source).
Add additional configurations in `app.ini` to enable Actions:
```ini
[actions]
ENABLED = true
```
Start it.
If all is well, you'll see the management page of runners:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205877365-8e30a780-9b10-4154-b3e8-ee6c3cb35a59.png">
#### 2. Start runner
Clone the [act_runner](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner), and follow
the
[README](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/src/branch/main/README.md)
to start it.
If all is well, you'll see a new runner has been added:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205878000-216f5937-e696-470d-b66c-8473987d91c3.png">
#### 3. Enable actions for a repo
Create a new repo or open an existing one, check the `Actions` checkbox
in settings and submit.
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205879705-53e09208-73c0-4b3e-a123-2dcf9aba4b9c.png">
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205879383-23f3d08f-1a85-41dd-a8b3-54e2ee6453e8.png">
If all is well, you'll see a new tab "Actions":
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205881648-a8072d8c-5803-4d76-b8a8-9b2fb49516c1.png">
#### 4. Upload workflow files
Upload some workflow files to `.gitea/workflows/xxx.yaml`, you can
follow the [quickstart](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/quickstart)
of GitHub Actions. Yes, Gitea Actions is compatible with GitHub Actions
in most cases, you can use the same demo:
```yaml
name: GitHub Actions Demo
run-name: ${{ github.actor }} is testing out GitHub Actions 🚀
on: [push]
jobs:
Explore-GitHub-Actions:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- run: echo "🎉 The job was automatically triggered by a ${{ github.event_name }} event."
- run: echo "🐧 This job is now running on a ${{ runner.os }} server hosted by GitHub!"
- run: echo "🔎 The name of your branch is ${{ github.ref }} and your repository is ${{ github.repository }}."
- name: Check out repository code
uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: echo "💡 The ${{ github.repository }} repository has been cloned to the runner."
- run: echo "🖥️ The workflow is now ready to test your code on the runner."
- name: List files in the repository
run: |
ls ${{ github.workspace }}
- run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
```
If all is well, you'll see a new run in `Actions` tab:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205884473-79a874bc-171b-4aaf-acd5-0241a45c3b53.png">
#### 5. Check the logs of jobs
Click a run and you'll see the logs:
<img width="1792" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9418365/205884800-994b0374-67f7-48ff-be9a-4c53f3141547.png">
#### 6. Go on
You can try more examples in [the
documents](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions)
of GitHub Actions, then you might find a lot of bugs.
Come on, PRs are welcome.
</details>
See also: [Feature Preview: Gitea
Actions](https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/)
---------
Co-authored-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: ChristopherHX <christopher.homberger@web.de>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
2023-01-31 09:45:19 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
} else if !auth_model.IsErrAccessTokenNotExist(err) && !auth_model.IsErrAccessTokenEmpty(err) {
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
log.Error("GetAccessTokenBySHA: %v", err)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2025-10-09 13:22:29 +02:00
|
|
|
if err := t.UpdateLastUsed(ctx); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Error("UpdateLastUsed: %v", err)
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2026-01-13 18:18:40 +01:00
|
|
|
if t.UID == 0 {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return nil, auth_model.ErrAccessTokenNotExist{}
|
2026-01-13 18:18:40 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2026-02-15 13:06:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reducer, err := authz.GetAuthorizationReducerForAccessToken(ctx, t)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Error("authz.GetAuthorizationReducerForAccessToken: %v", err)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
2026-02-15 13:06:19 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
u, err := user_model.GetUserByID(ctx, t.UID)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Error("GetUserByID: %v", err)
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return &accessTokenAuthenticationResult{user: u, scope: t.Scope, reducer: reducer}, nil
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-10 01:53:16 +08:00
|
|
|
// Verify extracts the user ID from the OAuth token in the query parameters
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
// or the "Authorization" header and returns the corresponding user object for that ID.
|
|
|
|
|
// If verification is successful returns an existing user object.
|
|
|
|
|
// Returns nil if verification fails.
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
func (o *OAuth2) Verify(req *http.Request, w http.ResponseWriter, _ auth.SessionStore) (auth.AuthenticationResult, error) {
|
2023-10-01 18:41:52 +08:00
|
|
|
// These paths are not API paths, but we still want to check for tokens because they maybe in the API returned URLs
|
|
|
|
|
if !middleware.IsAPIPath(req) && !isAttachmentDownload(req) && !isAuthenticatedTokenRequest(req) &&
|
2024-02-24 01:49:46 +08:00
|
|
|
!isGitRawOrAttachPath(req) && !isArchivePath(req) {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return &auth.UnauthenticatedResult{}, nil
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
token, ok := parseToken(req)
|
|
|
|
|
if !ok {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
return &auth.UnauthenticatedResult{}, nil
|
2023-07-11 10:04:28 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
auth, err := o.userIDFromToken(req.Context(), token)
|
2026-01-13 18:18:40 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
} else if auth.User() == nil {
|
|
|
|
|
// Having successfully found a token, it's now expected that the only valid outcomes are either errors that
|
|
|
|
|
// result in 401s (if the token wasn't valid), or valid authentication as a user. If we reach here, we've missed
|
|
|
|
|
// those expected outcomes and somehow returned an unauthenticated response even though a token was provided.
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, errors.New("unexpected unauthenticated result from userIDFromToken")
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
2026-04-22 21:00:26 +02:00
|
|
|
log.Trace("OAuth2 Authorization: Logged in user %-v", auth.User())
|
|
|
|
|
return auth, nil
|
2019-11-23 01:33:31 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2021-08-21 04:16:45 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func isAuthenticatedTokenRequest(req *http.Request) bool {
|
|
|
|
|
switch req.URL.Path {
|
|
|
|
|
case "/login/oauth/userinfo":
|
|
|
|
|
fallthrough
|
|
|
|
|
case "/login/oauth/introspect":
|
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
|
}
|