# Feature Request: Admin API route to manage access tokens for any user
## Problem
The existing API route to create access tokens (POST /api/v1/users/{username}/tokens) requires Basic authentication (username + password) via the reqBasicOrRevProxyAuth() middleware. This is by design: a token should not be created from another token.
However, this creates a blocker for environments where Basic authentication is disabled (ENABLE_BASIC_AUTHENTICATION = false), typically when authentication is delegated to an external SSO provider (e.g., OpenID Connect).
In such setups, bot/service accounts are provisioned by an external system that needs to:
Create a user via POST /api/v1/admin/users (works fine with an admin token)
Create an access token for that user (currently impossible without Basic auth or direct CLI/DB access)
The only workaround today is to SSH into the Forgejo server and run:
This is not suitable when the provisioning system has no direct access to the Forgejo host.
## Proposed solution
Add new admin-only API routes under the existing /api/v1/admin/users/{username} group to manage access tokens:
| Method | Route | Description |
|:-------- |:--------:| --------:|
| GET | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | List access tokens for a user|
|POST | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | Create an access token for a user|
|DELETE | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens/{id} | Delete an access token for a user|
These routes would:
Require a site admin token (reqToken() + reqSiteAdmin()) — no Basic auth needed
Use the AccessTokenScopeCategoryAdmin token scope
Reuse the existing handler logic from user.CreateAccessToken / user.ListAccessTokens / user.DeleteAccessToken
Accept the same request/response payloads as the existing user-facing routes
### Why this belongs in the admin API
It follows the existing pattern: admins can already create users, repos, orgs, SSH keys, and emails for any user via the admin API
It does not weaken security: only site administrators can call it, and it requires a valid admin-scoped token
It fills a gap: the admin CLI command forgejo admin user generate-access-token already provides this capability, but only locally
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323): <!--number 12323 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZmVhdChhcGkpOiBhZGQgYWRtaW4gcm91dGVzIHRvIG1hbmFnZSB1c2VyIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnM=-->feat(api): add admin routes to manage user access tokens<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Add the ability to remove workflow runs, either using the UI or the HTTP API. Workflow runs can only be removed once a workflow run has completed. For security reasons, only a repository administrator or a token with `write:repository` permissions can remove runs.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2184.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12478): <!--number 12478 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bWFrZSBpdCBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byByZW1vdmUgd29ya2Zsb3cgcnVucw==-->make it possible to remove workflow runs<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12478
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
The endpoint returning individual activities was missing access control checks, since IDs are sequential, this is not ideal.
Fixes#12333
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12382
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This is a implementation of #4277.
The core idea is that any activity (where activity is defined as anything that ends up in the `action` table) will be wrapped in an `ap.Note`, and sent to followers. Similarly, the inbox of local users now accepts such Notes. Additionally, there's now a "Feeds" tab on the user profile page, which displays the received notes.
# Preview
# How to Try?
The PR can be tried using a single Forgejo instance, but two distinct ones probably shows how it works better. For the sake of simplicity, lets try with a single instance. This is how to get started:
1. Enable federation
2. Subscribe one user to another (or to themselves):
```
curl -s -H "authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" -XPOST \
http://localhost:3000/api/v1/user/activitypub/follow \
--json '{"target": "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/activitypub/user-id/1"}'
```
This makes the first user follow themselves.
3. Create a repo, open an issue, or basically do anything that results in an activity recorded.
4. Visit `http://localhost:3000/{username}?tab=feed` to see the feed in action.
If you want to try with multiple instances, then it's very similar: you just change the `actor_id` to the IRI of the user you want to follow the first instance's user with, and then you can look at the feed tab of this user on the second instance, after you performed some activity on the first.
## Trying with Mastodon / GoToSocial
To try with Mastodon or GoToSocial, you will likely need to bring your Forgejo instance public, and behind https. Once your Forgejo instance is up, you can search for `@yourusername@forgejo.your.domain.example.com`, and simply follow your Forgejo account. Creating any activity will then happily federate to Mastodon & GoToSocial.
You can also copy & paste the Forge user's web profile URL (eg, `https://forgejo.your.domain.example.com/yourusername`) into your fedi client of choice, and it will discover the profile that way too.
# Testing
* test: https://codeberg.org/meissa/federation/src/branch/federated-user-activity-following/doc/user-activity-following/manual-test.md
* Proof of gts->forgejo: https://social.meissa-gmbh.de/@meissa/114499541149466596
* Proof of forgejo->gts: https://social.meissa-gmbh.de/@meissa/114505225265720094
## Architecture decisions
There are a number of ways user activity federation could be implemented. One way - which I explored first - is to wrap each activity, and send those, and let the client render it. The advantage of this would be that we'd be able to have references to other objects (comments, repos, etc). The disadvantage is that doing this requires making all of these things addressable, and that's a lot of work. Another disadvantage is that this requires every client to know how to display it.
Another way, chosen here, is to send a rendered HTML `ap.Note` instead, with an `AttributedTo` (`ap.Person`) property, which describes the activity that happened in a HTML note. This is much simpler to implement, and has the huge advantage that it is also easier to display. In fact, once we have http signatures, we should be able to federate user activity to Mastodon, too! (Though this also requires figuring out how Mastodon wants to follow a user...)
Since user activity federation is mostly cosmetic, as in, it's there for the user to see, rather than for programs to take actions based upon this activity, I believe that sending an `ap.Note` is preferable over a more machine-oriented approach.
## Limitations & TODO
### FederatedUser
We should be caching the Avatar in a similar way. For that, though, we also need to store the last activity of a federated user, so we can expire old avatars from the cache. The avatar refresh part will be covered by #4778.
### Notes
While sending out notes, the `AttributedTo` property is set to an `ap.Person`, based on the originating local user. This is currently unused. The idea is that once following is implemented properly (see above), we'll be able to link this to a FederatedUser (and thus to ExternalUser & User), which will allow us to display avatars and such, too.
### Display
The template used for displaying the received activities is currently incredibly simplistic. That's probably ok, it doesn't need to be fantastic.
### TODO
- [x] Fix the crashes on certain ops:
- [x] Issue/PR close & reopen
- [x] Figure out a better way to implement follows
- [x] Store the `AttributedTo` part of the note, too, the ID of it.
- [x] Make sure only those activities are sent out that need to be.
Currently, pretty much any activity is sent out, even private ones. We should be a bit smarter about that.
- [x] Make the ids used in the AP messages deterministic
The IDs used in the AP messages are currently UUIDs, and we do not store them, so all the IRIs are "invalid": the objects they refer to don't exist outside of the AP message itself. We should be able to reconstruct the Note objects and Create activities from their IDs.
- [x] Make it possible to follow Forgejo account from Mastodon and GtS
- [x] Mastodon without `AUTHORIZED_FETCH` works
- [x] GoToSocial can follow
- [x] Mastodon with `AUTHORIZED_FETCH` can follow
- ~~Create a cron job to refresh federated user avatars~~
- [x] Implement unfollowing
- [x] Add a `<link rel="alternate" type="application/activity+json" href="...">` to profile pages
This lets Mastodon & most other Fedi frontends discover the AP profile just by pasting a Forgejo user's web profile page into a search box, without having to know the corresponding AP actor URL
- [x] Make it easier to make a local user follow a remote AP actor
- ~~Rebase on top of #4778 by @realaravinth, once that is ready~~
- [x] Create an API endpoint to list the AP feed
- [x] Create a DB migration for the new stuff
- [x] Make swagger stuff happy
- [x] Clean up the commit history
- [x] ~~Tests~~ Opting for manual testing for now.
Co-authored-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-authored-by: jerger <jerger@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4767
Reviewed-by: jerger <jerger@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
This changes the ReqHTTPSignature middleware to cover the entire activitypub
route group to not miss any new routes again in the future. Further, this adds
a tests iterating through all activitypub routes to test that the signature
verification is actually done.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12339
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
In the case you hit some API error (Github ratelimit was often a problem) or the instance restarted in the middle of your migration, you would be left with data on the disk and/or database. Upon retrying the migration the migration code would (rightfully) fail because it's trying to migrate stuff that already exists.
This was hit so often on Codeberg it was better to force people to delete and start whole migration process again: 28ee60c91f
Delete the repository data before retrying to solve this.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12370
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Fix: `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/tags/{sha}` returns empty verification for signed tags
### Problem
When an annotated tag is signed (GPG or SSH) but the underlying commit is **not** signed, the API endpoint `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/tags/{sha}` returns an empty `verification.signature` field.
This is because `ToAnnotatedTag` was calling `ToVerification(ctx, c)` with the **commit** object, which checks the commit's signature — not the tag's own signature. Since the commit is unsigned, the API returns `signature: ""` and `verified: false`.
This causes issues for tools that rely on the tag signature from the API to validate that a tag push event is from a trusted source.
### Fix
`ToAnnotatedTag` now checks if the tag has its own signature (`t.Signature != nil`). If so, it uses `ParseTagWithSignature` to verify the tag's signature and populates the `verification` field from the tag. Otherwise, it falls back to the commit signature (existing behavior for unsigned/lightweight tags).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12351
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Allows user to assign organization projects to their new issues, using the project sidebar selector, even when repository's projects are disabled.
Moreover, the project sidebar selector is now hidden if no projects (repository-wide + organization-wide) are available.
Fixesforgejo/forgejo#5666
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7999
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Allows us to make use of Go features introduced in v1.26.
I require a feature from v1.26 for a PR I want to make later.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12369
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Allow JWTs that are generated by Forgejo Actions to be validated within Forgejo in-memory. Without any special support for this internal access situation, these problems would occur:
1. Forgejo would need to make an HTTP request to itself to get the valid public key for the JWT, in order to validate its signature. This is a waste of resources, and introduces a self-DoS risk.
2. Forgejo would need to be available via TLS in order for Actions to make service calls to Forgejo with that JWT, due to the TLS requirement for public key fetching. This would be a blocker for writing end-to-end tests for Forgejo, but also would affect users who do not host Forgejo with TLS.
3. Authorized Integrations would need to be saved with the `issuer` URL of Forgejo. If Forgejo's own `setting.AppURL` changed, all the persisted records in the database would become incorrect.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12364
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
`handleRefreshToken` never checked `token.Type == TypeRefreshToken`. When
`InvalidateRefreshTokens` is disabled, an access token could be submitted as a
`refresh_token` and exchanged for a new token pair.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Co-authored-by: jvoisin <julien.voisin@dustri.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12291
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR extends Forĝejo's PyPI package index to support [the simple JSON repository API](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/simple-repository-api/#json-serialization). Since the existing implementation was for the HTML serialization of the same simple API, no new endpoint has been added. Instead, Forĝejo chooses between serialization schemes based on the "Accept" header in the request. This, together with CORS, will make Forĝejo compatible with [micropip](https://github.com/pyodide/micropip).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12095): <!--number 12095 --><!--line 0 --><!--description SG9zdGVkIFB5UEkgcGFja2FnZXMgbWF5IGJlIGFjY2Vzc2VkIHZpYSB0aGUgW3NpbXBsZSBKU09OIEFQSV0oaHR0cHM6Ly9wYWNrYWdpbmcucHl0aG9uLm9yZy9lbi9sYXRlc3Qvc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbnMvc2ltcGxlLXJlcG9zaXRvcnktYXBpLyNqc29uLXNlcmlhbGl6YXRpb24pIGluIGFkZGl0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBzaW1wbGUgSFRNTCBBUEkgYWxyZWFkeSBhdmFpbGFibGUu-->Hosted PyPI packages may be accessed via the [simple JSON API](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/simple-repository-api/#json-serialization) in addition to the simple HTML API already available.<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12095
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Enables and tests the usage of Authorized Integrations to access the package registries. Specific testing includes:
- Container registry -- automated testing and manual testing
- Generic registry, w/ detailed authorization tests -- automated testing
- Conan registry -- automated testing (uses an "authenticate" endpoint that required updates)
- npm registry -- manual testing with a Forgejo Action publishing packages
For the container & conan registeries, where the client uses an authentication endpoint to request a temporary access token, the expiry of the temporary access token is restricted to the expiry of the authorized integration's JWT for the authorized integration in order to prevent an escalation of privileges.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [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
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12310
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
This change introduces a Path method on the TreeEntry struct, that
collects the path by moving upwards in the tree.
The existing FollowSymlink(s) methods interface has been changed, the
previously returned string has been removed, as after the fix it wasn't
used anywhere.
Fixes: #9931
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12246
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR is replacing repository based hooks hooks with centralised files, this way the files don't need to be copied into every repository, only one line of config need to be added in the repository.
Closes: #3523
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10397
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Previous similar PR: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11879.
Moved strings from INI to JSON. Some directly, some with keys updated to be consistent. The latter was done carefully, making sure all usages are updated, and was tested locally.
There are more deletions than insertions because some languages also had some extra empty lines removed.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12280
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Authorized Integrations is a new feature to allow users to define external systems which can generate JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) that Forgejo will trust in order to perform API access on behalf of that user. This is an authentication mechanism that requires zero preconfiguration of shared secrets, and instead establishes trust through short-lived secrets (JWTs) that are signed by the issuer, signatures are validated by comparison with published public keys, and a public-keys retrieved through well-known HTTP endpoints secured with TLS verification.
The primary goal of Authorized Integrations is to support a mechanism for Forgejo Actions to receive elevated, but controlled, additional access to Forgejo. More details as to what the end result will look like are available in the [design proposal](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004) on #3571.
This PR adds the core database storage and authentication verification for Authorized Integrations, with these capabilities:
- An Authorized Integration is resolved by a unique key of an "issuer" and an "audience". The value of "issuer" is defined by the remote integration, and the value of "audience" will incorporate a unique identifier generated by Forgejo.
- Example issuer: `https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com/` is the issuer for GitHub JWTs
- Example audience: `https://forgejo.example.org/-/mfenniak/authorized-integration/6cc55ba0` is the expected format for a random audience field that Forgejo will generate.
- JWTs can contain any number of claims, which are represented as a JSON object; Forgejo can validate these with a flexible policy.
- eg. a claim may be `{"sub": "repo:coolguy/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` indicating that an OIDC token was received from an Actions execution in a specific repo on a specific event.
- Authorized Integrations support a `ClaimRules` system which allows claim equal, glob, and nested object inspection.
- `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"eq","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` -- would validate that `sub` exactly equals the specific value
- `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"glob","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:*"}` -- would validate that `sub` matches the given string prefix but allow any event
- When a JWT is received on an incoming API call, Forgejo retrieves the Authorized Integration from the DB (if present), validates the token signature against a remote JWKS, validates the claims, and grants API access as the user with a permission scope defined on the Authorized Integration.
In addition to the unit testing provided here, this PR has been manually integration tested against three JWT issuing systems: Forgejo Actions, GitHub Actions, and AWS STS GetWebIdentityToken.
Careful consideration has been made of these security concerns:
- SSRF attacks against Forgejo are prevented by:
- having a blocklist on remote HTTP validation requests which prevent access to internal network resources,
- ensuring that authorized integrations are created by users with matching issuers, before attempting to validate tokens
- Resource utilization attacks against Forgejo are reduced by limiting the possible size of external metadata requests; when fetching `/.well-known/openid-configuration` and `jkws_uri`'s from remote, untrusted servers, a maximum response size of 16 kB is enforced
- Only well-known secure assymmetric JWT signing algorithms are supported -- in particular, the sketchy `none` JWT algorithm isn't supported.
- JWT validation is covered by extensive unit tests, covering validation of all JWT timestamps, validation of the issuers, validation of the issuer's documented supported signing algorithms.
This PR serves as a core, and many enhancements are required for this to be a usable system for users.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `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.
- Documentation updates for new config entries will be authored.
- [ ] 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.
- Marking not visible as there's no mechanism to interact with this backend yet.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12261
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Forgejo's `basic` and `oauth2` authentication methods perform five distinct types of authentication:
- Username and password authentication
- Personal access tokens
- OAuth2 access tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ forgejo.token }}` -- task-based static tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ env.ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN }}` JWT, which is the authentication method used for `upload-artifact` (mirroring GitHub's implementation)
`basic` and `oauth2` both supported almost all of these methods, resulting in quite a bit of code duplication between them. This PR splits personal access tokens into `access_token.go`, Action's task-based tokens into `action_task_token.go`, and Action's JWT tokens into `action_runtime_token.go`.
**Note:** There is one peculiar side-effect that is worth discussing. Previously, `Authorization: Basic ...` was handled by one complex code path in basic.go, and `Authorization: Bearer ...` was handled by another in oauth2.go, and if authorization failed and a 401 was returned, a single error message would be returned to the user. Now, as multiple authorization methods may look at `Authorization: Basic ...` and provide their own reason why authorization didn't work, a 401 response has multiple reasons for a lack of authorization listed:
```
401 Unauthorized
...
failure to authenticate with oauth2 access token: not a JWT
Basic authorization is not allowed while having security keys enrolled
access token does not exist [sha: notpassword]
task with token "notpassword": resource does not exist
```
A couple tests have been adapted to check that the result contains their expected response, rather than is equal-to or prefixed-with their expected result. This is caused by the "auth group" joining together any "invalid credentials" errors, and, to a certain extent it is useful to understand why the authorization request failed. But it's a bit obscure as well.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on integration testing for regression checks.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12236
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(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/12142
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
#12202 began a refactor of Forgejo's authentication implementations by providing structured data on an authentication success. However, error cases were maintained as-is in that refactor, leaving a complex situation: what does returning an error from an authentication method mean?; does it mean that the authentication failed, or that a server error occurred? Can another authentication still be tried?
This PR changes authentication methods so that they can return one of four things:
- `AuthenticationSuccess` with an authentication result.
- `AuthenticationNotAttempted` which indicates that no credentials relevant for this authentication method were presented. If every method returned `AuthenticationNotAttempted`, then you would have an unauthenticated access.
- `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential` which indicates that credentials were present and failed validation -- a situation indicating a `401 Unauthorized`.
- `AuthenticationError` which indicates that an internal server error occurred and failed authentication -- indicating a `500 Internal Server Error`.
This paves the way for one more refactor coming next: `basic.go` and `oauth2.go` perform 3-4 different authentications each (access tokens, oauth JWTs, actions tokens, actions JWTs, and username/password). With the capability to return these more precise responses, these authentication methods can be split up into separate logic that isn't intertwined together.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on existing test suite, with changes for any compile errors -- the next refactor will simplify the auth methods so that they can be unit tested easily.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12231
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Context
the three commits in this series are the first step towards the goal of removing the special casing around `JWT_SECRET`, which is used for various modules via `GetGeneralTokenSigningSecret()`. Ultimately, I want to work towards enabling seamless migration away from general use of the common secret. To enable this, we need proper secret/key rotation support, that is, we need to allow for configuration of additional secrets/keys which are accepted for token validation, but not used to issue tokens.
I have this _Verifier_ support basically implemented, but this PR is not it.
This PR contains cleanup refactoring which I worked on before writing the _Verifier_ support, because I noticed that the existing secret/key handling across modules was inconsistent and required duplicated code.
I am submitting this part now to allow for incremental review of not too large a diff, and because these commits remained unchanged during two weeks since I moved on the the next task.
## The problem being addressed
Configuration of JWT signing secrets/keys was inconsistent:
Under `[oauth2]` the full configuration set was supported:
- `JWT_SIGNING_ALGORITHM` configured the algorithm
- `JWT_SECRET` configured a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- `JWT_SECRET_URI` configured a `file:` uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- `JWT_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE` configured a file for asymmetric algorithms
For `[server]`, the LFS module only supported `LFS_JWT_SECRET`, and the signing method was hardcoded to `HS256`
For `[actions]`, only asymmetric signing methods were supported via `ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_ALGORITHM` and `ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE`.
## ini unification
The proposed code centralizes ini parsing to always support the following ini keys:
- `[pfx]SIGNING_ALGORITHM` determines the algorithm
- `[pfx]SECRET` is a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- `[pfx]SECRET_URI` is the uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- `[pfx]SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE` is a file with a private key for asymmetric algorithms
`[pfx]` is specific to the module and chosen to support the existing ini keys
Centralizing this code and unifying the ini keys will come handy for at least the following reasons:
- consistent behavior across modules is easier to understand
- less duplicated code
- easier to expand later, which is my main motivation
## implementation notes
as might be apparent by the _take3_ branch name, this is the third iteration of this patch series. The main reason why I abandoned the other two is that I first tried to move all the key initialization into the code called from settings.go when the ini file is parsed. But that lead to a lot of friction with test cases, because private key files which are configured, but do not exist will get created and hence require a writable `AppDataPath` and additional clean up.
To avoid a lot of noise and complications in test cases, I kept the existing two stage process, where
- the settings component creates missing symmetric signing keys and writes them to the .ini
- the settings component creates a simple configuration struct
- which is then used from the module init to create the actual key, which also includes creating a private key file if asymmetric crypto is configured and the key file does not exist.
I would have wished this patch was a net negative in terms of LOCs, but I hope it contributes to clarity and many added lines are in test cases.
## Commits
Because sometimes PRs are merged as squashes with the PR text remaining, I am repeating here the individual messages of the individual commits for future reference:
### Refactor signing key initalization and oauth2 use of it
This commit is the first in a series towards the goal of addressing the
FIXME comment in modules/setting/oauth2.go to remove
GeneralTokenSigningSecret
To do it properly, the task also requires addition of signing secret/key
rotation: We ultimately want to be able to change a signing key, but
continue to accept the previous one. This is particularly relevant to
offer a path from GeneralTokenSigningSecret aka JWT_SECRET to new,
specific component key configuration, where it should be possible to add
the former JWT_SECRET as a key accepted for verification to enable a
seamless transition.
This perspective, in turn, calls for refactoring of the existing secret
initialization code to centralize the common functions of parsing
signing key related configuration directives: The oauth2 module
currently is the only component accepting symmetric and asymmetric keys,
with the limitation of the symmetric key being also the
GeneralTokenSigningSecret. Other components either enforce HS256 or
public key algorithms.
We should really give the choice of algorithm selection and avoid code
duplication in other places, so this commit
- generalizes setting parsing into a configuration struct: A prefix can
be provided, with which the common configuration directives are
processed:
- [pfx]SIGNING_ALGORITHM determines the algorithm
- [pfx]SECRET is a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- [pfx]SECRET_URI is the uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- [pfx]SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE is a file with a private key for asymmetric algorithms
- which is then accepted by jwtx.InitSigningKey() to create an actual
signing key
The reasons for the two stage process are explained in a long-ish
comment in modules/setting/security.go. In short, other options would
either violate sensible module boundaries or cause too much friction.
These other options have actually been tried, this is take 3 of the
proposed changes.
### Refactor services/lfs: Change token code to use SigningKey
This now also enables use of token algorithms other than HS256.
In this case, signing key initialization also happens during settings
initialization, because LFS is also used in CLI commands.
### Refactor api/actions to use new signingkey API
This now also enables use of symmetric token algorithms.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11194
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>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(not applicable — Go-only change)
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
## Summary
Add public REST API endpoints under `/api/v1/` for listing, inspecting, downloading, and deleting Actions artifacts. Previously, artifacts could only be accessed through the web UI or the internal runner API.
### New endpoints
| Method | Path | Description |
|--------|------|-------------|
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts` | List all artifacts for a repository |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/artifacts` | List artifacts for a workflow run |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Get artifact metadata |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip` | Download artifact as zip |
| `DELETE` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Delete an artifact |
- List endpoints support `page`, `limit`, and `name` query parameters
- Both v1-v3 (multi-file, zip on-the-fly) and v4 (single zip) artifact backends are supported
- Expired artifacts are listed with `expired: true` but cannot be downloaded
- Delete requires write permission; all other endpoints require read permission
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12140
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Co-committed-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Move the logic for handling reruns of Forgejo Action workflows and individual jobs to services. That is a prerequisite for adding the corresponding HTTP API endpoints.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] 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/12141
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Resources in Forgejo can also be owned by predefined system users like Ghost or Forgejo Actions. Those have negative user IDs, for example, -2 in the case of Forgejo Actions. `OwnerID` checks oftentimes do not take these users into account, because their existence and how they work isn't well known. A [semgrep](https://semgrep.dev/) check is added that flags such suspicious `OwnerID` checks.
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12144 for background.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] 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/12184
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Fixes#11590
When viewing a user's SSH keys, SSH principals are now excluded from the output. This would previously either result in a panic in [OmitEmail](cfd4d53e32/models/asymkey/ssh_key.go (L67)), if the principal name didn't contain any spaces, or truncate the principal name, if it did contain spaces.
The TestExportUserSSHKeys test was also updated and fails if the fix(commit cfcbc33af0) is reverted.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
- [x] `make test`
- [x] `make test-sqlite#TestExportUserSSHKeys`
I have also manually tested the change.
The full integration tests(`make test-sqlite`) report some errors, but I get the same errors without this PR(tested on commit [6a5dda7116](6a5dda7116)).
I have not tested with the other database backends.
### 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/12079
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Alec Walsh <code@alecwalsh.name>
Co-committed-by: Alec Walsh <code@alecwalsh.name>
Allow for filtering users with 2fa enabled as admin. So that it is easy to audit users' settings compliance with iso27001, etc.
Resolves#11800
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12091
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Dominik Zyla <zylad@noreply.codeberg.org>
Prevent continued execution of some APIs with error responses that didn't correctly interrupt execution, resulting in bizarre outputs and possibly leaking secure data:
```
> GET /api/v1/repos/search?uid=-2&archived=false HTTP/2
> Host: example.org
> user-agent: curl/7.88.1
> accept: */*
> authorization: bearer ***
>
< HTTP/2 500
< server: nginx
< date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:20:09 GMT
< content-type: application/json;charset=utf-8
< cache-control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate, no-transform
< x-content-type-options: nosniff
< x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
<
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"ok":true,"data":[{"id":68,"owner":{"id":1,"login":"mfenniak", ...
```
As these errors only occur on situations that shouldn't be reproducible (minus software bugs), test automation isn't practical.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12143
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
While developing tests for #12092, I came across a case where making a comment on a single-commit doesn't include the correct diff for the comment. This is because code comment placement occurs between the PR's base and the commit being viewed, but, that diff could be different from the commit's parent to the commit, which is what is being viewed on a single-commit diff.
Similar to #12055, this PR changes code comments to be more precise in their diff generation by providing the backend with both the base commit (`before_commit_id`) and head commit (`after_commit_id`) currently being viewed. As a result, the diffs attached to comments should exactly match the diffs being viewed by the user when the comment was placed.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12107
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
First round of patches to re-enable some lints from my side.
This PR also refactors the general key fetching code quite a bit due to the way it currently worked
with relying on some values being nil sometimes.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11253
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
This is hopefully the final part of PR #4767, rebased and squashed.
More thorough federation tests are at https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1276 but the mock has been extended to hopefully cover a good chunk as well.
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Co-authored-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de>
Co-authored-by: zam <mirco.zachmann@meissa.de>
Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10380
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
When performing `git blame` to identify the commit that a line of code came from, limit the blame to the commit that is currently being viewed in the UI. Before this change, the blame always occurred on the current head of the PR, causing these problems:
- When you click ➕ to load the comment form, the form that is dynamically loaded would have it's commit field pulled from the current PR head. That may not actually reflect the code that you were viewing at the time you authored the comment -- it could be a newer commit that occurred by the author while you were reviewing.
- When viewing a specific commit within a PR and leaving a comment, the blame would occur from the head -- if the file was changed in a later commit and the line-of-code moved up or down, the comment would be misplaced.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `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-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055): <!--number 12055 --><!--line 0 --><!--description d2hlbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgaW4gUFJzLCBtYWtlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0aXZlIHRvIHRoZSB2aXNpYmxlIGNvZGUncyBjb21taXQ=-->when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
When a review comment is placed on a PR in Forgejo, Forgejo performs a `git blame` to identify which commit originated the line, and records that commit and line number in the comment's database record. Later when the review is viewed, Forgejo currently makes no effort to place that comment in the correct *current* location, which may vary -- for example, if a PR had two commits and the comment was made on a line in the first commit, but the second commit changes line numbers in that file, the comment will appear in the incorrect location.
This PR adds the usage of `git blame --reverse` to calculate the correct location to display the comment in the current view (whether reviewing the PR commit-by-commit, or "Files changed"). It certainly does not fix all problems with comment placement (see comments).
Another major addition in this PR is a test harness for making relatively complex PRs and reviewing the diffs on the per-commit view and PR-diff views.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [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
- [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-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015): <!--number 12015 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVsb2NhdGUgUFIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzIHVzaW5nIGBnaXQgYmxhbWUgLS1yZXZlcnNlYCwgaW1wcm92aW5nIGNvbW1lbnQgcGxhY2VtZW50-->relocate PR review comments using `git blame --reverse`, improving comment placement<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
If Forgejo encounters an Actions workflow with unknown jobs in a needs definition, Forgejo will ignore those and run the job anyway. That is bad. For example, releases could be published without any testing because the name of the testing job was misspelt.
Workflow that demonstrates the problem:
```yaml
on:
push:
workflow_dispatch:
jobs:
build:
runs-on: debian
steps:
- run: |
echo "OK"
test:
runs-on: debian
needs: [does-not-exist]
steps:
- run: |
echo "OK"
```
Now, before a workflow is run, Forgejo will check whether all jobs referenced in `needs` exist. If any of them does not, it raises a pre-execution error which fails the workflow immediately. It also displays an appropriate error to the user, for example:
```
Workflow was not executed due to an error that blocked the execution attempt.
Job with ID test references unknown jobs in `needs`: does-not-exist.
```
Futhermore, workflows with pre-execution errors can no longer be rerun, which was previously possible.
Original issue: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/977.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] 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.
- [ ] 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/12046
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 of !11115, it was not checked against the the modernizer linter.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12065
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fixes#6438
When a protected branch requires signed commits and no signing key is available, fast-forward-only merges should still be allowed because they do not create a new commit.
This patch applies signing checks by merge behaviour/style instead of one global gate:
- pass `mergeStyle` through `CheckPullMergeable(...)` in web/API/automerge paths
- require signing for commit-creating styles (`merge`, `rebase`, `rebase-merge`, `squash`)
- bypass signing precheck only for `fast-forward-only`
- align merge UI options with backend behaviour so signing-dependent styles are unavailable when signing cannot happen
- add Go unit tests for merge-style signing requirements
- add frontend unit coverage for the no-allowed-merge-styles guard
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11403
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: abdo <dev@abdo.wtf>
Co-committed-by: abdo <dev@abdo.wtf>
Fixes#9282
Adds a new admin panel category for federation related administration.
Includes views for:
- Instance Federation Configuration
- List of Federation Hosts
- (Per-Instance) List of Federated Users
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11115
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com>
Co-committed-by: Florian Pallas <mail@fpallas.com>
This reverts commit 79ed45d39a.
Testing has shown that it breaks Docker 26 which is the version included in Debian Trixie.
It was originally introduced with https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11678.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12058
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
When using Forgejo's `enable-openid-connect: true`, a URL is generated into the actions under `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` that can be used to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources authenticated as the action executing in this server on this repo. However, the endpoint of that url (`.../idtoken`) had unintentionally missed a `return` on an internal server error, and was missing a check that the action actually had `enable-openid-connect: true` on it. As a result, it was possible to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources from an action that wasn't expected to be generating JWTs.
In terms of real-world vulnerability, the most likely risk is that the JWT could be generated from a forked pull request. By not using the `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` and instead going directly to the `.../idtoken` endpoint, and parsing a generated JWT response that will be mixed with an error response, it's possible to retrieve a JWT in a forked pull request. It would require a slight misconfiguration on a third-party system to allow that JWT access, but it's a plausible risk.
As this is a feature in Forgejo 15 that hasn't been released, it will be fixed in-public.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- Feature is not yet released.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12030
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 PR is a minimal implementation to add `/actions/runs/{id}/jobs` (#11859).
This endpoint is also required by `/actions/jobs/{id}/logs`.
The pagination, filtering, custom sorting, more response fields are left to future work.
## Usage
```
curl -X 'GET' \
'https://hostname/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{id}/jobs' \
-H 'accept: application/json'
```
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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.
Co-authored-by: elbaro <elbaro@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11915
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: elbaro <elbaro@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: elbaro <elbaro@noreply.codeberg.org>
Optimize loading pull request review comments, which currently perform separate database queries for each comment in order to load the resolver of the comment, and the reactions on that comment, and the users on each reaction of the comments.
I stumbled across this ugly code, which enticed me to look into this:
80d840c128/routers/web/repo/pull.go (L1107-L1120)
It appeared to load the attachments from each comment on the pull request review page in separate database queries. It turned out to be a noop, as the attachments are already loaded in bulk:
80d840c128/models/issues/comment_code.go (L120-L122)
but the `findCodeComments` method loads the "resolver doer" and the reactions one-by-one for each comment. So I fixed that instead, and removed the ineffective deeply nested for loop.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### 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/11988
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#9629.
New pull mirrors have credentials stored encrypted in the database, the same as push mirrors, rather than in the repository's `config` file. `git fetch` on the pull mirror is updated to use the credential store. Pull mirrors will have their credentials migrated to the encrypted storage in the database as they're synced or otherwise accessed via the web UI.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11909
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Picks the update commit from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11200 and fixes the new incompatibilities.
I ran full end-to-end tests against Forgejo and basic end-to-end tests against GoToSocial which appear to be working.
Co-authored-by: Renovate Bot <forgejo-renovate-action@forgejo.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11301
Reviewed-by: elle <0xllx0@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
Co-committed-by: famfo <famfo@famfo.xyz>
