https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11393 introduced a second challenge, one for HTTP Basic Authentication, to the existing `WWW-Authenticate` header sent by Forgejo's container registry in response to missing or invalid credentials. However, that led to unexpected compatibility issues with some clients. For example, it broke Renovate (see https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions/41774).
To be extra-safe, the decision was taken to revert that particular change without introducing a second header field (i.e., sending two `WWW-Authenticate` headers). That effectively restores the old behaviour.
```
$ curl -v -u andreas --basic http://192.168.178.62:3000/v2
Enter host password for user 'andreas':
* Trying 192.168.178.62:3000...
* Connected to 192.168.178.62 (192.168.178.62) port 3000
* using HTTP/1.x
* Server auth using Basic with user 'andreas'
> GET /v2 HTTP/1.1
> Host: 192.168.178.62:3000
> Authorization: Basic *****
> User-Agent: curl/8.15.0
> Accept: */*
>
* Request completely sent off
< HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
< Content-Length: 50
< Content-Type: application/json
< Docker-Distribution-Api-Version: registry/2.0
< Www-Authenticate: Bearer realm="http://192.168.178.62:3000/v2/token",service="container_registry",scope="*"
< Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:00:21 GMT
<
{"errors":[{"code":"UNAUTHORIZED","message":""}]}
```
## 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
- [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/11616
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
AccessTokenError is never used as a Go error. In fact, it is returned
as a *AccessTokenError (which would result in a `nil` error when cast).
Rename the struct to a more accurate name and remove the unused
`Error() string` method to prevent future confusion.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11595
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Co-committed-by: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
## What is broken
Quota on packages is not enforced when pushing to an organisation.
`enforcePackagesQuota()` calls `EvaluateForUser(ctx.Doer.ID, ...)` — it checks how much space the **uploader** personally owns, not the org being pushed to. Since packages accumulate under `package.owner_id = org_id`, the uploader always shows 0 bytes used and the check always passes.
This also means site admins bypass quota entirely when pushing to orgs (they get the service-layer admin bypass on top of the 0-byte measurement).
OCI/container routes (`/v2/...`) have the same problem but worse — `enforcePackagesQuota()` was not called on them at all.
## Fix
Check quota against `ctx.Package.Owner.ID` instead of `ctx.Doer.ID`. The package owner (the org or user being pushed to) is already available via `ctx.Package.Owner`, populated by `PackageAssignment()` before this middleware runs.
For individual user namespaces nothing changes — `ctx.Package.Owner` is the user themselves.
Also wired `enforcePackagesQuota()` into the missing OCI upload routes: `InitiateUploadBlob`, `UploadBlob`, `EndUploadBlob`, `UploadManifest` — both in the named `/{image}` group and the wildcard `/*` handler.
## Tested
Kind cluster, org `maw2` with 1 GiB quota, 2.6 GiB of container images already pushed:
- pushing a generic package to `maw2` as SA user → was 201, now 413
- pushing a generic package to `maw2` as `gitea_admin` → was 201, now 413
- initiating OCI blob upload to `maw2` as SA user → was 202, now 413
- pushing to own user namespace within quota → still 201
Co-authored-by: azhluwi <lukasz.widera@convotis.ch>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11442
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: wejdross <wejdross@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: wejdross <wejdross@noreply.codeberg.org>
- For small modals fomantic tried to add a `scrolling` class using a function that was not implemented, this function is now stubbed.
- There's not really a need to conditionally change the behavior of scrolling or not, we can specify `overflow-y: auto` which is more than enough to take care of this. We do add some layout changes to ensure the modal is fully scrollable.
- Refactor to nested CSS.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#10991
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11547
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
This PR is part of a series (#11311).
Adds support for reading and creating repo-secific access tokens through the API via the `GET /users/{username}/tokens`, `POST /users/{username}/tokens`, and `DELETE /users/{username}/tokens/{id}` APIs.
Validation rules are included to [restrict repo-specific access tokens to specific scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504): <!--number 11504 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVhZCwgY3JlYXRlLCAmIGRlbGV0ZSByZXBvLXNwZWNpZmljIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnMgdmlhIEFQSQ==-->read, create, & delete repo-specific access tokens via API<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Submitting the repo avatar form without selecting a file shows a raw Go error: `Avatar.Open: open : no such file or directory.`. The existing `nil` check does not prevent this from happening.
The user avatar handler already guards against this same problem with [`form.Avatar != nil && form.Avatar.Filename != ""`](e1cecbd276/routers/web/user/setting/profile.go (L141)), I've done the same for the repo avatar handler.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11335
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Bram Hagens <bram@bramh.me>
Co-committed-by: Bram Hagens <bram@bramh.me>
Follow forgejo/forgejo!9110 and add a shortcut to the link action, via ctrl/command + K.
Close#11353
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11466
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: anon_ally <ANON_ALLY@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: anon_ally <ANON_ALLY@noreply.codeberg.org>
Forgejo's OCI container registry did not enable basic authentication for the top-level endpoint `/v2`. Furthermore, it did not include the `WWW-Authenticate` header when returning the status code 401 as mandated by [RFC 7235](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7235#section-3.1), "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", section 3.1. Those deficiencies made it impossible for Apple's [container](https://github.com/apple/container) to log into Forgejo OCI container registry. This has been rectified.
The problem did not occur with most other tools because they do not include credentials when sending the initial request to `/v2`. Forgejo's reply then included `WWW-Authenticate` as expected.
Enabling basic authentication for `/v2` has the side effect that Apple's container uses username and password for all successive requests and not the bearer token. If that is a problem, it's up to Apple to change container's behaviour.
If invalid credentials are passed to `container registry login`, then container enters an infinite loop. The same happens with quay.io, but not ghcr.io (returns 403) or docker.io (returns 401 but _without_ `WWW-Authenticate`). As this is invalid behaviour on container's side, it's up to Apple to change container. Docker and Podman handle it correctly.
Login and pushing have been tested manually with Docker 29.1.3, Podman 5.7.1, and Apple's container 0.9.0.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11297.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [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/11393
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
The [test disabling the issue unit][0] took care of [reseting the disabled units][1]. However, it overlooked that calling [`LoadUnitConfig`][2] also has a [side effect on `DefaultRepoUnits`][3]. It happens when [`validateDefaultRepoUnits` has a side effect][4] on the array backing the slice, when it is [not recreated][5]. As a result the issue unit is disabled for all tests that run after this one.
The subtle side effect is harmless because it only happens in tests, the `LoadUnitConfig` is otherwise only called once. For clarity `LoadUnitConfig` is modified to clone the unit array being validated so that the returned slice is never backed by the same array as the argument.
As the global variables used for repository units should be saved and restored as a whole, a dedicated test function (`SaveUnits`) is provided to be used by both integration tests and unit tests. The test of the unit model is refactored to be a blackbox test in order to avoid an import cycle.
[0]: cce5f868ce/tests/integration/repo_settings_test.go (L258)
[1]: cce5f868ce/tests/integration/repo_settings_test.go (L253)
[2]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L171)
[3]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L182)
[4]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L162)
[5]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L148)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11470
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Co-committed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
This PR is part of a series (#11311).
If the user authenticating to an API call is a Forgejo site administrator, or a Forgejo repo administrator, a wide variety of permission and ownership checks in the API are either bypassed, or are bypassable. If a user has created an access token with restricted resources, I understand the intent of the user is to create a token which has a layer of risk reduction in the event that the token is lost/leaked to an attacker. For this reason, it makes sense to me that restricted scope access tokens shouldn't inherit the owner's administrator access.
My intent is that repo-specific access tokens [will only be able to access specific authorization scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951), probably: `repository:read`, `repository:write`, `issue:read`, `issue:write`, (`organization:read` / `user:read` maybe). This means that *most* admin access is not intended to be affected by this because repo-specific access tokens won't have, for example, `admin:write` scope. However, administrative access still grants elevated permissions in some areas that are relevant to these scopes, and need to be restricted:
- The `?sudo=otheruser` query parameter allows site administrators to impersonate other users in the API.
- Repository management rules are different for a site administrator, allowing them to create repos for another user, create repos in another organization, migrate a repository to an arbitrary owner, and transfer a repository to a prviate organization.
- Administrators have access to extra data through some APIs which would be in scope: the detailed configuration of branch protection rules, the some details of repository deploy keys (which repo, and which scope -- seems odd), (user:read -- user SSH keys, activity feeds of private users, user profiles of private users, user webhook configurations).
- Pull request reviews have additional perms for repo administrators, including the ability to dismiss PR reviews, delete PR reviews, and view draft PR reviews.
- Repo admins and site admins can comment on locked issues, and related to comments can edit or delete other user's comments and attachments.
- Repo admins can manage and view logged time on behalf of other users.
A handful of these permissions may make sense for repo-specific access tokens, but most of them clearly exceed the risk that would be expected from creating a limited scope access token. I'd generally prefer to take a restrictive approach, and we can relax it if real-world use-cases come in -- users will have a workaround of creating an access token without repo-specific restrictions if they are blocked from needed access.
**Breaking:** The administration restrictions introduced in this PR affect both repo-specific access tokens, and existing public-only access tokens.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- Although repo-specific access tokens are not yet exposed to end users, the breaking changes to public-only tokens will be visible to users and require release notes.
- [ ] 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/11468
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#11268
Fixes regression of #9614
Calling `initDisabledInputs` wasn't effective for template contents, so inputs in MDEs spawned by repo-legacy.js on comment editing were broken. Now repo-legacy.js also calls it when it spawns a new MDE.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <Gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11341
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
This change is to enable some additional trace logging for oauth2.
Initial setups can be a real pain to debug, and getting JWT back for debug purpose helps a lot i.e. checking claims, roles, groups.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11175
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: AngryDove <angrydove@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: AngryDove <angrydove@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Breaking*: /teams/{id}/repos previously allowed read access to private
repositories even if a "public-only" access token was in-use. This has
been restricted to only return public repositories in this case.
**Breaking**: when using a public-only access tokens, private
repositories were not filtered out by the `/users/{username}/repos` or
`/orgs/{org}/repos` APIs. This access has been removed in this change.
**Breaking**: accessing the `/repositories/{id}` API with a public-only
access token did not restrict read access to only public repositories.
As part of a consolidation of permission logic with repo-specific access
tokens, this access has not been restricted.
As these APIs only work on forks, and it's not possible to change the
visibility of a fork from its parent, only testing the API access
pattern against the head is sufficient. Also it is not a breaking
change due to checkTokenPublicOnly middleware already enforcing this for
public-only scopes, and the lack of ability to change a fork's
visibility.
**Breaking**: Public-only tokens previously had the capability to make
issue dependencies and block issues w/ data from private repositories
through these APIs, which has been revoked by this change to support
fine-grained access tokens.
**Breaking**: Public-only tokens previously had the capability to view
private repositories through this API, which has been revoked by this
change to support fine-grained access tokens.
**Breaking**: Public-only tokens previously had the capability to view
private repositories through this API, which has been revoked by this
change to support fine-grained access tokens.
**Breaking*: /teams/{id}/repos/{org}/{repo} previously allowed read
access to private repositories even if a "public-only" access token was
in-use. This has been restricted to only return public repositories in
this case.
Repository-specific personal access tokens will allow a user's access tokens to be restricted to accessing zero-or-more specific repositories. Currently they can be configured as "All", or "Public only", and this project will add a third configuration option allowing specific repositories.
This PR is part of a series (#11311), and builds on the infrastructure work in #11434. In this PR, repository-specific access tokens are implemented on the universal permission checks performed by the API middleware, affecting ~182 API endpoints that perform permission checks based upon repositories referenced in their API path (eg. `/v1/api/repos/{owner}/{repo}/...`).
**Breaking change:** API access with a public-only access token would previously return a `403 Forbidden` error when attempting to access a private repository where the repository is on the API path. As part of incorporating the public-only logic into the centralized permission check, these APIs will now return `404 Not Found` instead, consistent with how repository-specific access tokens, and other permissions checks, are implemented in order to reduce the risk of data probing through error messages.
For larger context on the usage and future incoming work, the description of #11311 can be referenced.
## 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
### 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.
- As there is no end-user accessibility to create repo-specific access tokens, this functionality will not be accessible to end-users yet. But the breaking change in error APIs for public-only access tokens will be visible to end-users.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Breaking features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11437): <!--number 11437 --><!--line 0 --><!--description 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-->implement repo-specific access tokens broadly for universal API permission checks. **Breaking:** API access with a public-only access token would previously return a `403 Forbidden` error when attempting to access a private repository where the repository is on the API path. As part of incorporating the public-only logic into the centralized permission check, these APIs will now return `404 Not Found` instead, consistent with how most permission checks are implemented in order to reduce the risk of data probing through error messages.<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11437
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Repository-specific personal access tokens will allow a user's access tokens to be restricted to accessing zero-or-more specific repositories. Currently they can be configured as "All", or "Public only", and this project will add a third configuration option allowing specific repositories.
This PR is part of a series (#11311), and builds on the infrastructure work in #11434. In this PR, repository-specific access tokens are implemented in `CheckRepoScopedToken`, which is a specific codepath used by git operations to check the permissions of an access token.
For larger context on the usage and future incoming work, the description of #11311 can be referenced.
## 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...
- [ ] `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.
- As repo-specific access tokens are not exposed to end-users, this PR does not require release notes.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11452
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Probably fixes (or improves, at least) https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/1391, paired with the runner implementation https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1393.
When the FetchTask() API is invoked to create a task, unpreventable environmental errors may occur; for example, network disconnects and timeouts. It's possible that these errors occur after the server-side has assigned a task to the runner during the API call, in which case the error would cause that task to be lost between the two systems -- the server will think it's assigned to the runner, and the runner never received it. This can cause jobs to appear stuck at "Set up job".
The solution implemented here is idempotency in the FetchTask() API call, which means that the "same" FetchTask() API call is expected to return the same values. Specifically, the runner creates a unique identifier which is transmitted to the server as a header `x-runner-request-key` with each FetchTask() invocation which defines the sameness of the call, and the runner retains the value until the API call receives a successful response. The server implementation returns the same tasks back if a second (or Nth) call is received with the same `x-runner-request-key` header. In order to accomplish this is records the `x-runner-request-key` value that is used with each request that assigns tasks.
As a complication, the Forgejo server is unable to return the same `${{ secrets.forgejo_token }}` for the task because the server stores that value in a one-way hash in the database. To resolve this, the server regenerates the token when retrieving tasks for a second time.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11401
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#11036.
This adds a link from a CI run to the file that its workflow was taken from.
| Before | After |
|---------|---------|
|  |  |
Before:
* the `test.yml` link points to the list of other runs (`/org123/repo2/actions?workflow=test.yml`)
After:
* the `test.yml` link points to the workflow definition (`/org123/repo2/src/commit/55b048363c8cfa7d9e8b5cade5c75681bd0c7328/.forgejo/workflows/test.yml`)
* the `all runs` link points to the list of other runs (`/org123/repo2/actions?workflow=test.yml`)
I have tried to retain the existing link to the list of workflow runs (moving it to a separate link), but I am not sure if this link should be retained at all and if so how.
## Checklist
### 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.
- [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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11216): <!--number 11216 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bGluayBDSSBqb2IgdG8gaXRzIGRlZmluaW5nIHdvcmtmbG93IGZpbGU=-->link CI job to its defining workflow file<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11216
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Co-committed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
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>
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>
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>
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>
### 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>
