Currently:
- In the database, `NULL` is used in `action_runner_token.owner_id` & `.repo_id` to represent an absent value, as required by the foreign key
- In the code, `0` is used in `ActionRunnerToken.OwnerID` and `.RepoID` to represent an absent value
This PR replaces the `int64` fields with `optional.Option[int64]` which allows a single data type to be used for both cases, and removes the usage of the value `0` as a placeholder.
This change has a limited scope -- although `ActionRunnerToken` uses `NULL` values in the database, the related table `ActionRunner` still uses zero-values for `OwnerID` and `RepoID`. This means a lot of code interacting with both of these tables still uses `0` values, such as the UI. The changes here were stopped at a reasonable point to avoid cascading into all places that use the `ActionRunner` table. (I'll continue this work in the future to enable foreign keys on `ActionRunner`, but likely after #11516 is completed to avoid serious conflict resolution problems.)
## 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.
- [ ] 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/11601
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
One of the security patches released 2026-03-09 [fixed a vulnerability](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11513/commits/d1c7b04d09f6a13896eaa1322ac690b2021539da) caused by a misapplication of Go `case` statements, where the implementation would have been correct if Go `case` statements automatically fall through to the next case block, but they do not. This PR adds a semgrep rule which detects any empty `case` statement and raises an error, in order to prevent this coding mistake in the future.
For example, code like this will now trigger a build error:
```go
switch setting.Protocol {
case setting.HTTPUnix:
case setting.FCGI:
case setting.FCGIUnix:
default:
defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://"
}
```
Example error:
```
cmd/web.go
❯❯❱ semgrep.config.forgejo-switch-empty-case
switch has a case block with no content. This is treated as "break" by Go, but developers may
confuse it for "fallthrough". To fix this error, disambiguate by using "break" or
"fallthrough".
279┆ switch setting.Protocol {
280┆ case setting.HTTPUnix:
281┆ case setting.FCGI:
282┆ case setting.FCGIUnix:
283┆ default:
284┆ defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://"
285┆ if setting.HTTPAddr == "0.0.0.0" {
286┆ defaultLocalURL += "localhost"
287┆ } else {
288┆ defaultLocalURL += setting.HTTPAddr
```
As described in the error output, this error can be fixed by explicitly listing `break` (the real Go behaviour, to do nothing in the block), or by listing `fallthrough` (if the intent was to fall through).
All existing code triggering this detection has been changed to `break` (or, rarely, irrelevant cases have been removed), which should maintain the same code functionality. While performing this fixup, a light analysis was performed on each case and they *appeared* correct, but with ~65 cases I haven't gone into extreme depth.
Tests are present for the semgrep rule in `.semgrep/tests/go.go`.
## 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).
### 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/11593
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
The new filters are especially useful for status monotoring like kuma to have more relevant results.
The wrong status check seems to be a regression of #6300
## 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.
- [ ] 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/11584
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
Co-committed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
Previously, issues were deleted from the indexer only when the repository was deleted.
Individually deleting issues would not remove them from the indexer.
Instead, they were merely hidden due to their IDs being absent from the DB.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11585
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
Co-committed-by: Shiny Nematoda <snematoda.751k2@aleeas.com>
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>
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>
Remove recipients that are not active (e.g. done by moderation or
organizational reasons) and those that have the permi ssion to read
releases on that repository.
The API already checked the permission sufficiently if auto merge could
be cancelled by the doer. The web route did not. Consolidate this check
in the function that lives in the services directory.
It was possible to hijack attachments during update and create functions
to another owner as permissions to check they weren't already attached
to another resource and wasn't checked if it belonged to the repository
that was being operated on.
There are two ways to use a OAuth2 token:
Via the Authorization header as a Bearer token.
Via the Authorization header as a Basic login.
For the former the scope was correctly passed through, for the latter it
was not and would mean no scope was checked if you used the token via
this way.
As discussed here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/444 the container v2 API logic does need some refactoring for better maintainability.
This is a proposition on how to achieve that. My goal was to be able to write unit tests for functions like processImageManifest() which are currently only tested indirectly by TestPackageContainer() in tests/integration/api_packages_container_test.go.
A first unit test was implemented that targets ProcessManifest(). I think that test also shows what steps are needed to successfully execute the ProcessManifest() function and hopefully helps understanding that code better.
## 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.
- [ ] 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.
*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/11432
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
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>
It is unfortunately all mixed up, because refreshing the data, means breaking the tests. And changing the code means needing fresh data.
- tests: ignore some more headers and sort the rest when dumping http responses
- code: fixed#10234 by requesting the latest issues first.
- tests: created a new repo to replace the disappeared repo, needed for the skip-numbers test
- refreshed the testdata.
- follow-up fixes to get the tests green.
- including a cherry-pick of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36295 and #11272
Co-authored-by: Joakim Olsson <joakim@unbound.se>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11282
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
This reverts commit d4951968f0, #10008.
When Forgejo cancels a job server-side, for example due to an additional push to an open PR, it immediately archives the logs from DBFS to disk due to the changes in #10008. Then, the runner recognizes that the job status is cancelled and it attempts to flush its pending logs to Forgejo, resulting in warnings being logged:
```
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:11+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:11+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:11+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:12+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:13+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:14+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="runner: received shutdown signal"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="runner: shutdown initiated, waiting [runner].shutdown_timeout=0s for running jobs to complete before shutting down"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="[poller] shutdown begin, 1 tasks currently running"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="forcing the jobs to shutdown"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:18+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:24+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
```
This appears to be the cause of the `push-cancel` end-to-end test failing since #10008 was merged. https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/actions/runs/4985/jobs/8/attempt/1 The `push-cancel` test case itself seems to succeed, but then the test process aborts with `return 1`. Doesn't reproduce locally.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11462
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
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>
Logs moving out of the database to the filesystem (actions_module.TransferLogsAndUpdateLogInStorage)
did not happen in the following cases:
- the runner does not send an UpdateLog message with NoMore == true
- StopTask is called (canceling from the web.UI, canceling a scheduled
task)
This is fixed by consistently calling actions_service.TransferLogsAndUpdateLogInStorage when
a task is completed by:
- UpdateTaskByState if it concludes with Status.IsDone
- StopTask
Test coverage exists at:
- TestActionsDownloadTaskLogs
will fail if UpdateTaskByState does not call TransferLogsAndUpdateLogInStorage when
when task.Status.IsDone()
stat .../tests/integration/gitea-integration-sqlite/data/actions_log/user2/actions-download-task-logs/48/72.log.zst: no such file or directory
- TestActionNowDoneNotification
will fail if StopTask returns on error when calling TransferLogsAndUpdateLogInStorage
Error Trace: .../tests/integration/actions_run_now_done_notification_test.go:142
Refs https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/9999
---
Note on backporting: it cannot be easily backported to v11.0 because it would require a more involved backport to untangle circular dependencies. It is also not essential in the context of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/9999 for instances being polluted by logs that stay in the database. The new [cron job](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10009) that disposes of them will take care of those daily and they will not be growing the database indefinitely.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10008): <!--number 10008 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZW5zdXJlIGFjdGlvbnMgbG9ncyBhcmUgdHJhbnNmZXJyZWQgd2hlbiBhIHRhc2sgaXMgZG9uZQ==-->ensure actions logs are transferred when a task is done<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10008
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.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>
This change fixes an issue that makes Forgejo clean up too many versions of a container package even though it should keep them according to the rules set for the package.
The issue affects multi-platform container images.
Forgejo adds a package version for each platform (for example `linux/amd64`, `linux/arm64`) in addition to the actual tag (for example `0.6.0` or `latest`).
This results in rows in the table `package_version` similar to this (unimportant columns omitted for brevity):
| **lower_version** | **created_unix** |
|---|---|
| `latest` | `1768742887`|
| `0.6.0` | `1768742886` |
| `sha256:038e...` | `1768742886` |
| `sha256:fc38...` | `1768742886` |
| `0.5.0` | `1768742864` |
| `sha256:806d...` | `1768742864` |
| `sha256:0a19...` | `1768742864` |
| `0.4.0` | `1768742848` |
| `...` | `...` |
The code assumes that the first `<keep count>` entries can be ignored and considers every entry after `<keep count>` as eligible for cleanup.
That doesn't work for multi-platform container images because, for `<keep count>=5`, it considers version `0.4.0` as eligible.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11246): <!--number 11246 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Y2xlYW51cCBvZiBtdWx0aS1wbGF0Zm9ybSBjb250YWluZXIgaW1hZ2Vz-->cleanup of multi-platform container images<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11246
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: wandhydrant <wandhydrant@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: wandhydrant <wandhydrant@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes: #11238
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Co-authored-by: Diego Díez <diegodiez.ddr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11240
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
`Option[T]` currently exposes a method `Value()` which is permitted to be called on an option that has a value, and an option that doesn't have a value. This API is awkward because the behaviour if the option doesn't have a value isn't clear to the caller, and, because almost all accesses end up being `.Has()?` then `OK, use .Value()`.
`Get() (bool, T)` is added as a better replacement, which both returns whether the option has a value, and the value if present. Most call-sites are rewritten to this form.
`ValueOrZeroValue()` is a direct replacement that has the same behaviour that `Value()` had, but describes the behaviour if the value is missing.
In addition to the current API being awkward, the core reason for this change is that `Value()` conflicts with the `Value()` function from the `driver.Valuer` interface. If this interface was implemented, it would allow `Option[T]` to be used to represent a nullable field in an xorm bean struct (requires: https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/66).
_Note:_ changes are extensive in this PR, but are almost all changes are easy, mechanical transitions from `.Has()` to `.Get()`. All of this work was performed by hand.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11218
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Forgejo's UI claims that whitespace is removed from the beginning and the end of the values of Forgejo Actions variables and secrets. However, that is not correct. The entered values are stored as-is. Only CRLF is replaced with LF, which is also the desired behaviour.
This PR changes the incorrect text which is also no longer displayed as placeholder but as a proper help text below the input fields. Furthermore, tests were added to verify the behaviour.
While adding tests, I discovered and fixed another inconsistency. Depending on whether secrets were managed using the UI or the HTTP API, they were treated differently. CRLF in secrets entered in the UI was correctly replaced with LF while secrets created using the HTTP API kept CRLF.
Fixes#11003.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11052
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
The end-to-end tests are currently failing on v15: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/actions/runs/4900/jobs/8/attempt/1#jobstep-4-356 This is a regression from #11164.
The cause of this regression is:
- When the job emitter emits new jobs, it *now* sets their `Needs` field correctly, fixed in #11164.
- If a job has `needs` set to a non-empty array, it will start as status **blocked**: db037fca50/models/actions/run.go (L369-L370)
This got past manual testing and the end-to-end test run in #11164 because it is intermittent. If the runner invokes `UpdateTask` multiple times once the status of the job is settled, then the API will invoke the job emitter multiple times -- a second run would unblock the newly blocked jobs. Podman-based runners do this often due to a long cleanup time, and Docker-based runners (like the end-to-end test) can do it randomly depending on a race condition.
db037fca50/routers/api/actions/runner/runner.go (L241-L244)
The fix for this is to reinvoke the job emitter's logic whenever new jobs are created, so that their new blocked state can be reevaluated to see if it is correct or not. This is treated cautiously by examining if new jobs are present.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- This will be a fix to an unreleased regression within the milestone, and so won't be user-facing.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11184
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
fix(ui)!: Remove the instance configuration option `repository.pull-request.ADD_CO_COMMITTER_TRAILERS` (was enabled by default). It was responsible for addition of unexpected trailers to commit messages in squash merges. These trailers were `Co-authored-by: ` and `Co-committed-by: `. Both used the pull request author as value, who is also assigned as the author of the squash merge commit, which they were just repeating. Furthermore, `Co-committed-by: ` is an uncommon commit trailer, and there is only one committer for a commit. The trailers were being added by Forgejo while performing the merge, bypassing user input in the UI and weren't shown in it. See further description and more examples in [#11097](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11097).
Closes: #11097Closes: Codeberg/Community#2030
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11096
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
This slightly simplifies calling code by centralizing the common 3-liner to create a JWT from claims, signed by a key.
But more importantly, it reduces the risk of `key.PreProcessToken()` being forgotten, which will become relevant in upcoming PRs:
`key.PreProcessToken()` adds the key id to the JWT header, which is important to efficiently validate tokens when multiple validation keys are supported (that is not the case yet)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11067
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
- When working forgejo/forgejo!8714 I did not touch the UI to remove the
note and `disabled` attribute. This was not intentional, and was likely
caused by me straight going for testing (as the backend code would allow
the username change).
- Slightly refactor the context to a common function, don't hard error
if `CanUserRename` fails but does default to that you cannot rename in
that case (which is the standard behavior of OAuth2 users anyway).
I already was aware that it seems !8714 wasn't working on Codeberg but someone at FOSDEM pointed it out again, thus the reason for this bug fix.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11171
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fixes#11163. When expanding a dynamic matrix (or any other dynamic job), the references to the original `needs` of the jobs are lost.
This is manually tested, and moderately covered by an automated test. Will follow-up with an end-to-end test after a regression run is complete.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11164
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
On an open PR that is waiting for job approval, if jobs haven't been approved by the time the abandon timeout occurs they get marked as cancelled. This doesn't match the expectations of abandoned jobs in my opinion, which is that they were never able to be dispatched to a runner (no matching labels), but these jobs never got a chance. They should remain valid and blocked until approved.
Discovered while testing #11125, but unrelated to the behaviour fixed there.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11145
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#11125. When a PR is closed, cancel any action runs associated with the pull request that are not approved so that they do not remain in the Actions list as a blocked action.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11134
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This modifies usernames of ActivityPub accounts to use the @example@example.tld
format with an additional optional port component (e.g. @user@example.tld:42).
This allows accounts from ActivityPub servers with more relaxed username
requirements than those of Forgejo's to interact with Forgejo. Forgejo would
also follow a "de facto" standard of ActivityPub implementations.
By separating different information using @'s, we also gain future
opportunities to store more information about ActivityPub accounts internally,
so that we won't have to rely on e.g. the amount of dashes in a username as
my migration currently does.
Continuation of Aravinth's work: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4778
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9254
Reviewed-by: jerger <jerger@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Co-committed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Webhooks not enabled for push events cannot be tested using the
"Test delivery" button, because the built-in test payload corresponds
to a push event and is therefore filtered out at delivery time if the
webhook isn't configured to trigger for such events.
This fixes it by delivering the payload for a push event regardless
of the webhook's configuration. This has the downside of delivering
a payload which isn't necessarily representative of what the webhook
will deliver for real, but it would be a significant effort to implement
test payloads for all possible event types. We leave this as a follow-up
improvement.
Fixes#7934.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11073
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Co-committed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Fixes#11030.
When a `strategy.matrix` needs to be evaluated on the output of another job, it can become evaluated into an empty set of jobs. In this case, and assuming no other jobs in the run are active, the run should reach a settled state. The logic to check the other jobs in the run and determine if this state has been hit needs to be explicitly added to the job emitter.
To accomplish this change, this action run state logic was extracted out of `UpdateRunJobWithoutNotification` where it could be reused.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11063
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#10881
Call the proper function for each repository the user watches, so adjusting the watch count can be done properly.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10882
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: christopher-besch <mail@chris-besch.com>
Co-committed-by: christopher-besch <mail@chris-besch.com>
This PR fixes a number of typos throughout the entire repository. Running https://github.com/crate-ci/typos and then changing all occurrences that I naively deemed "safe enough".
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10753
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
Co-committed-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
Followup to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6154
en-US:
two days ago -> 2 days ago
two weeks ago -> 2 weeks ago
two months ago -> 2 months ago
two years ago -> 2 years ago
Other locales still require changes to ensure
that the relative time numbering is consistent.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10691
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: lily <lesson085@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: lily <lesson085@gmail.com>
