Remove the field `ephemeral` from the response to runner registration requests made using the HTTP API (POST to `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runners` and friends) that was introduced with https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9962. The client already knows that it requested an ephemeral runner. Therefore, the information is redundant.
It can be included again should a compelling use case arise.
This part of the HTTP API hasn't been released yet. Therefore, it is safe to remove the field.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11350
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Our package registries types have many things in common, so they have many shared strings like
```json
"packages.installation": "Installation",
```
but not all and not consistently. For example, some packages duplicate these strings:
```json
"packages.*.install": "To install the package, run the following command:",
"packages.*.registry": "Setup this registry from the command line:",
"packages.*.repository": "Repository info",
"packages.*.dependencies": "Dependencies",
```
while other packages have them customized:
```json
"packages.cargo.install": "To install the package using Cargo, run the following command:",
"packages.composer.install": "To install the package using Composer, run the following command:",
"packages.conan.install": "To install the package using Conan, run the following command:",
"packages.conda.install": "To install the package using Conda, run the following command:",
```
While it's ok for them to have custom strings, I don't see need to duplicate the same generic strings. Even though Weblate provides tools to simplify maintenance of duplicated strings, our files still end up being bloated.
In this PR I deduplicated the strings listed above under a `common` key. There already was a generic shared string for Dependencies, that I just re-used.
Also fixed strings in Arch packages, which were saying Depends with meaning of Dependencies.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11345
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Followup to #10702 where two new strings were hardcoded in the template.
## Changes
- added as translatable strings
- made the template use a variable to avoid making it a long unreadable
- an unrelated change where tests related to this area of the template are moved to a separate file
- they were created in Forgejo: c92b4b12c8, 192177fc88
## Testing
Testing translations of all individual strings is considered not needed.
Added test for tmpl logic which was missing and that I've touched.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11333
Reviewed-by: Luis Adame <luisadame@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This is to have a simple and consistent make target for developers to locally run the checks which the CI will also run. The goal is to avoid wasting review cycles on CI failures.
To have a single source of truth, the CI is adjusted to call the same make target. Additional checks should no longer be added to the CI workflow, but rather to the makefile.
The pull request template is adjusted to remind of running this make target.
CI output is improved by using a simple bash script which uses sed to add `##[group]` tags to "make --debug=b" output and filter out messages which usually do not contribute to understanding. While this approach has limits and depends on the specific debug output format of GNU make, it avoids adjusting the makefile itself for additional CI beautification, contributing to maintainability.
- no tests needed (this is purely a build change)
- docs: hint added to PR template
- no release notes needed
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11053
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
The virtual session code creates an in-memory session, and only upon release does it copy it to the actual session store. This makes a lot of sense to avoid operations on session stores with potentially high cost for I/O.
This commit removes a weird hack used in this code: virtual sessions were always created with an _old_uid=0 key/value pair, which was taken into account when checking if the session needed to be persisted.
As I could not find _any_ use of _old_uid in the code base, this looks like something worth removing.
The first ever mention of _old_uid is b33f7f792b and even there it is part of a
newly added file with no additional information. So likely code copied over from another project?
- no tests to add, remove or change
- not relevant for documentation
- not relevant for release notes
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11277
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Potentially fixes one of the E2E failures that started to occur lately where the last tab (Starred repos) can overflow on user2's profile on CI.
Replaced the user by the one that has no counters on the tabs.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11337
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
As described in [this comment](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/issues/19#issuecomment-739221) one-job runners are not secure when running in host mode. We implemented a routine preventing runner tokens from receiving a second job in order to render a potentially compromised token useless. Also we implemented a routine that removes finished runners as soon as possible.
Big thanks to [ChristopherHX](https://github.com/ChristopherHX) who did all the work for gitea!
Rel: #9407
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9962
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Manuel Ganter <manuel.ganter@think-ahead.tech>
Co-committed-by: Manuel Ganter <manuel.ganter@think-ahead.tech>
The example was not a valid map, which caused issues with some openapi yaml converters.
I gave the two options proper values and also added them to the other team structs so the examples are identical.
Also sorted them as they are enumerated in the [unit model definition](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/models/unit/unit.go), which is why the diff is a bit ugly.
Fixes#9881
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11093
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com>
Co-committed-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com>
Previously, when a project id was passed into the new issue form as a
query parameter, it wouldn’t be selected if the project belonged to the
user or organization instead of directly to the repository.
Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#8489
Signed-off-by: Nils Philippsen <nils@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9906
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Nils Philippsen <nilsph@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Nils Philippsen <nilsph@noreply.codeberg.org>
Add `flex` or `inline-flex` to the direct parent element of the SVG icon in the navigation bar to make the overall alignment look better.
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11259
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: panc <pan0xc@foxmail.com>
Co-committed-by: panc <pan0xc@foxmail.com>
Increase the default `SQLITE_TIMEOUT` from 500ms to 60s.
In #11179 this was bumped up to 5s. But when that was backported to v14 in #11220, it failed consistently in CI through a couple increases, until it was bumped up further to 60s. This PR updates the `forgejo` branch to the same so that in the future when Forgejo 15 is released, it isn't regressed. `test-sqlite` has been failing on `forgejo` occasionally as well, so this increase is justified on this branch for this reason as well.
Putting aside the tests, I think a high value for the timeout (this 60s) is generally safer for production usage than a small timeout. The worst case with a high timeout is a slow request when there is high write contention on the DB.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- **Will update** the documentation for the default value if approved.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Other changes without a feature or bug label
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11292): <!--number 11292 --><!--line 0 --><!--description aW1wcm92ZSBTUUxpdGUgImRhdGFiYXNlIGlzIGxvY2tlZCIgZXJyb3JzIGJ5IGluY3JlYXNpbmcgZGVmYXVsdCBgU1FMSVRFX1RJTUVPVVRgICh0YWtlIDIp-->improve SQLite "database is locked" errors by increasing default `SQLITE_TIMEOUT` (take 2)<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11292
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Replaces https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11271
This rule was problematic and didn't quite make sense:
* the intention is to have a navbar that is 48px+1px border
* we apply `min-height:49px` to: `#navbar` with intention of making it 49px tall total, with border
* but we also apply it to `#navbar .navbar-left/right`
* elements `#navbar .navbar-left/right` become 49px tall
* their parent `#navbar` becomes 49px+1px border = 50px, overriding what was done in step 2
This height missmatch had an incompatibility with this definition for open menu inside of navbar on mobile, causing jitter when the menu is opened/closed, because it was expecting navbar body to be 48px, but due to the rule that was removed it was actually 49px.
```css
#navbar.navbar-menu-open .navbar-left .navbar-mobile-right {
min-height: 48px;
}
```
The fix is to only apply `min-height` to `#navbar`'s children. At least `.navbar-left` is always expected to be present unconditionally on all pages. This does make the navbar 1px shorter. If we still want a 50px navbar but without the bug let me know and I'll adjust.
### Preview by @panc
From https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11271, also applies to this PR.
| Before | After |
|----|----|
| <video src="/attachments/515fdfc1-cb97-46af-88ac-9bb0e216a996" title="Screencast From 2026-02-13 19-56-32" controls></video> | <video src="/attachments/133d1499-4660-402d-8082-f407b3644e5c" title="Screencast From 2026-02-13 19-57-29" controls></video> |
Reported-by: panc <panc@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11274
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
I noticed that the wrong content type in an `/upload` request can trigger a 500, and I'm guessing it is more appropriate to return 400 instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10954
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Roberto Vidal <roberto.vidal@ikumene.com>
Co-committed-by: Roberto Vidal <roberto.vidal@ikumene.com>
The navigation menu on mobile is divided into two sections, but there is no gap between them. I referred to the following code and set the gap to `gap: .35714286em`
```CSS
.ui.secondary.menu {
margin-left: 0;
margin-right: 0;
gap: .35714286em;
}
```
| Before | After |
|--------|-------|
|  |  |
| Before | After |
|--------|-------|
|  |  |
Another thing to note is that the dot of the stopwatch extends beyond the background.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11262
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: panc <pan0xc@foxmail.com>
Co-committed-by: panc <pan0xc@foxmail.com>
This change fixes an issue that makes Forgejo clean up too many versions of a container package even though it should keep them according to the rules set for the package.
The issue affects multi-platform container images.
Forgejo adds a package version for each platform (for example `linux/amd64`, `linux/arm64`) in addition to the actual tag (for example `0.6.0` or `latest`).
This results in rows in the table `package_version` similar to this (unimportant columns omitted for brevity):
| **lower_version** | **created_unix** |
|---|---|
| `latest` | `1768742887`|
| `0.6.0` | `1768742886` |
| `sha256:038e...` | `1768742886` |
| `sha256:fc38...` | `1768742886` |
| `0.5.0` | `1768742864` |
| `sha256:806d...` | `1768742864` |
| `sha256:0a19...` | `1768742864` |
| `0.4.0` | `1768742848` |
| `...` | `...` |
The code assumes that the first `<keep count>` entries can be ignored and considers every entry after `<keep count>` as eligible for cleanup.
That doesn't work for multi-platform container images because, for `<keep count>=5`, it considers version `0.4.0` as eligible.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11246): <!--number 11246 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Y2xlYW51cCBvZiBtdWx0aS1wbGF0Zm9ybSBjb250YWluZXIgaW1hZ2Vz-->cleanup of multi-platform container images<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11246
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: wandhydrant <wandhydrant@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: wandhydrant <wandhydrant@noreply.codeberg.org>
The general consensus I have gotten from past contributions is that `return nil, nil` is an
antipattern in Forgejo, especially because:
```go
val, err := Func()
if err != nil {
return
}
val.Func()
```
can easily lead to a nil pointer dereference.
This PR merely enables the lint and ignores all currently broken files. In addition to this PR,
a tracking issue to keep track of re-enabling nilnil linting on the ignored files could be
useful.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11235
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Fixes: #11238
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Co-authored-by: Diego Díez <diegodiez.ddr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11240
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Remove the documentation for the deprecated authentication methods Token and AccessToken. The functionality remains in place because it's still in use.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11232
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Defines new css colours for theming:
```css
--color-selection-bg: var(--color-primary-light-1);
--color-selection-fg: var(--color-white);
```
which are then used both in the `base.css` and in the relative-time shadow object.
This, is how it looks for me when selecting before and after this patch (my Browser’s accent colour used for selection is orange):
| | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Forgejo Light |  |  |
| Forgejo Dark | |  |
| Gitea Light |  |  |
| Gitea Dark |  |  |
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11231
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
### Disclaimer
Generative AI (ChatGPT) was used to debug the e2e test, with copied code lines below threshold of originality.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11156
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
`Option[T]` currently exposes a method `Value()` which is permitted to be called on an option that has a value, and an option that doesn't have a value. This API is awkward because the behaviour if the option doesn't have a value isn't clear to the caller, and, because almost all accesses end up being `.Has()?` then `OK, use .Value()`.
`Get() (bool, T)` is added as a better replacement, which both returns whether the option has a value, and the value if present. Most call-sites are rewritten to this form.
`ValueOrZeroValue()` is a direct replacement that has the same behaviour that `Value()` had, but describes the behaviour if the value is missing.
In addition to the current API being awkward, the core reason for this change is that `Value()` conflicts with the `Value()` function from the `driver.Valuer` interface. If this interface was implemented, it would allow `Option[T]` to be used to represent a nullable field in an xorm bean struct (requires: https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/66).
_Note:_ changes are extensive in this PR, but are almost all changes are easy, mechanical transitions from `.Has()` to `.Get()`. All of this work was performed by hand.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11218
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
