Replaces #10789
Convert the layout from flex-list helpers to a CSS-native grid. This allows to having buttons in different rows aligned to each other while keeping the layout responsive, i.e. looking good on both desktop and mobile.
### Preview (desktop)
|Before|After|
|-|-|
|||
### Preview (mobile)
|Before|After|
|-|-|
|||
### Preview (Guest)
|Before|After|
|-|-|
|||
## Testing
Automated tests were added to make sure that actions in this list are still working, and for basic template logic. No tests were added for layout because layout being correct is an abstract concept that is difficult to explain to Playwright.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11127
Reviewed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <wetneb@noreply.codeberg.org>
As noted in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/10900#issuecomment-10339634, `TestAPICreateIssueParallel` is failing intermittently in Forgejo CI. Based upon this intermittent failure, I've made these changes:
- Increase the parallel run of the test from 10 instances to 100, which caused this test to fail consistently and reliably on my dev workstation. The test execution time at 100 parallel invocations is only ~4 seconds.
- Increase the default `SQLITE_TIMEOUT` from 500ms to 5s, which caused this test to succeed consistently on my dev workstation.
Is 5000ms the right setting? 🤷 On local testing, this specific test failed...
- 2500ms: failed 1/1 times
- 3000ms: failed 1/3 times
- 3500ms: failed 0/10 times
## 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
- [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. -- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls/1775
- [ ] 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/11179
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Forgejo's UI claims that whitespace is removed from the beginning and the end of the values of Forgejo Actions variables and secrets. However, that is not correct. The entered values are stored as-is. Only CRLF is replaced with LF, which is also the desired behaviour.
This PR changes the incorrect text which is also no longer displayed as placeholder but as a proper help text below the input fields. Furthermore, tests were added to verify the behaviour.
While adding tests, I discovered and fixed another inconsistency. Depending on whether secrets were managed using the UI or the HTTP API, they were treated differently. CRLF in secrets entered in the UI was correctly replaced with LF while secrets created using the HTTP API kept CRLF.
Fixes#11003.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11052
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Normalizes the issue/pr title case when searching if it contains any of the wip prefixes, which are also normalized, just in case.
Fixes#11189
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11190
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Luis <luis@adame.dev>
Co-committed-by: Luis <luis@adame.dev>
Display version without compat metadata for admins too, not just for regular users. It was confusing to some, though I don't remember who got confused.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11196
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Slightly related to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11196, but it has no tests related to the change in that PR.
Added tests because I wanted those config options be tested, but haven't found any existing tests.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11197
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes#11083.
## 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.
Co-authored-by: f <f@sutty.nl>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11153
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: fauno <fauno@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: fauno <fauno@noreply.codeberg.org>
Adds a new button on the right side of the label's filter menu items to explicitly exclude labels.
The new button is reachable with the keyboard by using the vertical arrow keys to reach the label you want to exclude and then the horizontal arrow keys to select the exclusion button.
The new button will only be visible when hovering the menu item or reaching it with the keyboard.
Adjusted the alignment of labels when at least one label is selected so that users can clearly discern which labels are selected or not.
Resolves#3302
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10702
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Luis <luis@adame.dev>
Co-committed-by: Luis <luis@adame.dev>
Stores the entire list of AssigneeIDs for each issue in the indexer.
This fixes the bug where there were missing entries for issues with assignees while filtering.
Note: Will re-index all issues
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10552
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Co-committed-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Adds a CI check which detects any usage of xorm's `Sync` method that doesn't include `IgnoreDropIndices: true`, and causes an error.
`semgrep` is a semantic grep tool that allows for the relatively easy authoring of linting tools that are customized to a project's specific needs, rather than generic like `golangci` and related tools. Although `semgrep` offers a suite of out-of-the-box rules (and a paid set of rules), neither of those are used here -- only one Forgejo-specific rule is added in `.semgrep/xorm.yaml`.
My intent with this change is to introduce the idea and infrastructure of `semgrep` with a single minimal rule. Once in-place, this will become a tool that we can use when we recognize bad coding patterns and wish to correct them permanently, rather than relying on human code review. While generic linting tools do this well for general patterns, this will allow Forgejo to apply domain-specific checks. For example, in #11112, an error indicates that it might be appropriate for us to always use `.StorageEngine("InnoDB")` when using an xorm engine -- if we made that determination, it could be cemented in-place with a `semgrep` rule relatively easily.
This specific rule looks for any access for xorm's `Sync` or `SyncWithOptions` methods on the `*xorm.Engine` or `*xorm.Session`. They are then considered errors if they don't include `IgnoreDropIndices: true`. This is *typically* correct and safe, but can also be ignored when specifically needed. In the `.semgrep/tests` folder, test code is added which validates that the `semgrep` rule matches the expected patterns; this self-test is run before `semgrep` runs on the PR in CI.
As a demonstration, when `IgnoreDropIndices` is removed from a migration, here's an error: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/135750/jobs/12/attempt/1
```
models/forgejo_migrations/v14b_add-action_run-preexecutionerrorcode.go
❯❯❱ semgrep.xorm-sync-missing-ignore-drop-indices
xorm Sync operation may drop indices if used on an incomplete bean definition for an existing table.
Use SyncWithOptions with IgnoreDropIndices: true instead.
22┆ _, err := x.SyncWithOptions(xorm.SyncOptions{}, new(ActionRun))
```
## 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/11142
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This PR contains the following updates:
| Package | Type | Update | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| [https://data.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo) | action | patch | `v3.1.3` → `v3.1.4` |
---
### Release Notes
<details>
<summary>actions/setup-forgejo (https://data.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo)</summary>
### [`v3.1.4`](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo/releases/tag/v3.1.4)
[Compare Source](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo/compare/v3.1.3...v3.1.4)
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
<!--URL:https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo-->
- other
- [PR](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo/pulls/869): <!--number 869 --><!--line 0 --><!--description VXBkYXRlIGRlcGVuZGVuY3kgZm9yZ2Vqby9ydW5uZXIgdG8gdjEyLjYuMw==-->Update dependency forgejo/runner to v12.6.3<!--description-->
- [PR](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo/pulls/863): <!--number 863 --><!--line 0 --><!--description VXBkYXRlIGRhdGEuZm9yZ2Vqby5vcmcvb2NpL2FscGluZSBEb2NrZXIgdGFnIHRvIHYzLjIz-->Update data.forgejo.org/oci/alpine Docker tag to v3.23<!--description-->
- [PR](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo/pulls/849): <!--number 849 --><!--line 0 --><!--description UmVwbGFjZSBjb2RlLmZvcmdlam8ub3JnL29jaS9kZWJpYW4gRG9ja2VyIHRhZyB3aXRoIGRhdGEuZm9yZ2Vqby5vcmcvb2NpL2RlYmlhbg==-->Replace code.forgejo.org/oci/debian Docker tag with data.forgejo.org/oci/debian<!--description-->
- [PR](https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo/pulls/848): <!--number 848 --><!--line 0 --><!--description UmVwbGFjZSBjb2RlLmZvcmdlam8ub3JnL29jaS9hbHBpbmUgRG9ja2VyIHRhZyB3aXRoIGRhdGEuZm9yZ2Vqby5vcmcvb2NpL2FscGluZQ==-->Replace code.forgejo.org/oci/alpine Docker tag with data.forgejo.org/oci/alpine<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
</details>
---
### Configuration
📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM ( * 0-3 * * * ) (UTC), Automerge - Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM ( * 0-3 * * * ) (UTC).
🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.
♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.
🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.
---
- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box
---
This PR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate).
<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiI0Mi45My4xIiwidXBkYXRlZEluVmVyIjoiNDIuOTMuMSIsInRhcmdldEJyYW5jaCI6ImZvcmdlam8iLCJsYWJlbHMiOlsiZGVwZW5kZW5jeS11cGdyYWRlIiwidGVzdC9ub3QtbmVlZGVkIl19-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11104
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Renovate Bot <forgejo-renovate-action@forgejo.org>
Co-committed-by: Renovate Bot <forgejo-renovate-action@forgejo.org>
## Changes
I've made releases list more usable on narrow viewports while trying keep the layout unchanged for desktop viewports.
To support these changes large amount of Tailwind classes were converted to regular CSS to be applied conditionally via `@media`. While it was possible to just adjust the Tailwind classes to achieve the same behavior, there's a positive effect which is that the repeating HTML of releases generated by template's range is much less verbose and contains fewer long duplicated lines of Tailwind classes.
## Preview
### Desktop
Not much changed, but the dot between tag and release name is no more.
|Before|After|
|-|-|
|||
### Mobile
|Before|After|
|-|-|
|||
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11080
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
The end-to-end tests are currently failing on v15: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/actions/runs/4900/jobs/8/attempt/1#jobstep-4-356 This is a regression from #11164.
The cause of this regression is:
- When the job emitter emits new jobs, it *now* sets their `Needs` field correctly, fixed in #11164.
- If a job has `needs` set to a non-empty array, it will start as status **blocked**: db037fca50/models/actions/run.go (L369-L370)
This got past manual testing and the end-to-end test run in #11164 because it is intermittent. If the runner invokes `UpdateTask` multiple times once the status of the job is settled, then the API will invoke the job emitter multiple times -- a second run would unblock the newly blocked jobs. Podman-based runners do this often due to a long cleanup time, and Docker-based runners (like the end-to-end test) can do it randomly depending on a race condition.
db037fca50/routers/api/actions/runner/runner.go (L241-L244)
The fix for this is to reinvoke the job emitter's logic whenever new jobs are created, so that their new blocked state can be reevaluated to see if it is correct or not. This is treated cautiously by examining if new jobs are present.
## 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
- [ ] 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.
- This will be a fix to an unreleased regression within the milestone, and so won't be user-facing.
*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/11184
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
fix(ui)!: Remove the instance configuration option `repository.pull-request.ADD_CO_COMMITTER_TRAILERS` (was enabled by default). It was responsible for addition of unexpected trailers to commit messages in squash merges. These trailers were `Co-authored-by: ` and `Co-committed-by: `. Both used the pull request author as value, who is also assigned as the author of the squash merge commit, which they were just repeating. Furthermore, `Co-committed-by: ` is an uncommon commit trailer, and there is only one committer for a commit. The trailers were being added by Forgejo while performing the merge, bypassing user input in the UI and weren't shown in it. See further description and more examples in [#11097](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11097).
Closes: #11097Closes: Codeberg/Community#2030
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11096
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
This slightly simplifies calling code by centralizing the common 3-liner to create a JWT from claims, signed by a key.
But more importantly, it reduces the risk of `key.PreProcessToken()` being forgotten, which will become relevant in upcoming PRs:
`key.PreProcessToken()` adds the key id to the JWT header, which is important to efficiently validate tokens when multiple validation keys are supported (that is not the case yet)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11067
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
This fixes a flake that my previous PR #10933 introduced. Since no individual feed items were previously asserted in the test, the inconsistent sort order never caused an issue before. Thanks to @mfenniak for pointing me in the right direction.
## Checklist
### 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
- [ ] 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/11176
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: xrstf <git@xrstf.de>
Co-committed-by: xrstf <git@xrstf.de>
- When working forgejo/forgejo!8714 I did not touch the UI to remove the
note and `disabled` attribute. This was not intentional, and was likely
caused by me straight going for testing (as the backend code would allow
the username change).
- Slightly refactor the context to a common function, don't hard error
if `CanUserRename` fails but does default to that you cannot rename in
that case (which is the standard behavior of OAuth2 users anyway).
I already was aware that it seems !8714 wasn't working on Codeberg but someone at FOSDEM pointed it out again, thus the reason for this bug fix.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11171
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#11064
- Show a note similar to that of GPG keys, when a user has no SSH keys uploaded through Forgejo. The content is recognized as a comment in SSH authorized files format and ends with a newline.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11143
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fixes#11163. When expanding a dynamic matrix (or any other dynamic job), the references to the original `needs` of the jobs are lost.
This is manually tested, and moderately covered by an automated test. Will follow-up with an end-to-end test after a regression run is complete.
## 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11164
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This patch only moves code around and splits out two functions from
loadOrCreateAsymmetricKey(). The diff is best viewed with -b to ignore
white space (indentation) changes.
This is done for two reasons:
- For future additions, we will need loadAsymmetricKey() only, without
the create
- The doubly nested immediately invoked closure construction was not
exactly helping clarity
golang-jwt/jwt already has a GetSigningMethod() function which we should
use to ensure that our signing methods are actually registered.
Yet we should also keep our own check against a set of allowed methods
such that we do not accidentally accept methods which we are not
prepared to support.
On an open PR that is waiting for job approval, if jobs haven't been approved by the time the abandon timeout occurs they get marked as cancelled. This doesn't match the expectations of abandoned jobs in my opinion, which is that they were never able to be dispatched to a runner (no matching labels), but these jobs never got a chance. They should remain valid and blocked until approved.
Discovered while testing #11125, but unrelated to the behaviour fixed there.
## 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11145
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
fixes#9028 - when searching issues via repo api, org labels are ignored
added integration test that reproduces the bug
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11109
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Ori Hoch <ori@uumpa.com>
Co-committed-by: Ori Hoch <ori@uumpa.com>
Fixes#11125. When a PR is closed, cancel any action runs associated with the pull request that are not approved so that they do not remain in the Actions list as a blocked action.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [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/11134
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.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>
This PR changes the URL format for `/compare/` links in the RSS/Atom feeds to include the full domain. This makes the links consistent with all other URLs in the feeds.
Fixes#10168.
I tested this on a local Forgejo build with a sample org and a dummy repository as per the original issue. I then fetched the feed to check:
```bash
$ curl http://localhost:3000/helloworld.atom | grep compare
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 4194 0 4194 0 0 297k <id>10: ed4090ecc2...412413fd40</id>
0 -- <link href="ed4090ecc2...412413fd40" rel="alternate"></link>
```
## Checklist
### AI Disclosure
I used AI to
* ask it how to run a single integration test locally because I didn't know about `make test-sqlite#XXX`.
### 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/10933
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: xrstf <git@xrstf.de>
Co-committed-by: xrstf <git@xrstf.de>
This modifies usernames of ActivityPub accounts to use the @example@example.tld
format with an additional optional port component (e.g. @user@example.tld:42).
This allows accounts from ActivityPub servers with more relaxed username
requirements than those of Forgejo's to interact with Forgejo. Forgejo would
also follow a "de facto" standard of ActivityPub implementations.
By separating different information using @'s, we also gain future
opportunities to store more information about ActivityPub accounts internally,
so that we won't have to rely on e.g. the amount of dashes in a username as
my migration currently does.
Continuation of Aravinth's work: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4778
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9254
Reviewed-by: jerger <jerger@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Co-committed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
