**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12231#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.
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12468
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
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).
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12462
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12446
- Regression of forgejo/forgejo!11776 (and forgejo/forgejo!11881)
- Scope of the transaction is moved to a per-package cleanup rule basis.
This is also a enhancement for scaling (already deployed on Codeberg for a while).
- Package cleanup is now run with `RetryTx`, because rebuilding
repository files runs `RetryTx` and it could indicate to retry the whole
transaction.
- Previously it would error and say running `RetryTx` in a
transaction was not possible, this is now possible. Nested `RetryTx` is
always allowed, matching of which errors to retry is still the responsible
of the inner `RetryTx`.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12452
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12370
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.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12422
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12351
## 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).
Co-authored-by: steven.guiheux <steven.guiheux@ovhcloud.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12395
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Backport: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12292
When a pull request is opened, the author is able to mark that pull request to "Allow edits from maintainers", which grants the maintainers of the pull request's repo access to edit the pull request branch contents. It is possible to create a pull request where the pull request author does not have the ability to edit the pull request branch. Due to a missing security check for this case, maintainers of the pull request repo would be granted the ability to edit the pull request branch, even if the author of the pull request did not have that ability. By exploiting this missing security check, a user can edit any branch in a repository if they're able to fork that repository. The issue is being fixed by restricting the scope of "Allow edits from maintainers" to only grant that access if the pull request author also had access to edit the branch.
Thanks to Arvin Shivram of Brutecat Security for discovering and responsibly disclosing the vulnerability.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12293
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12224
If one or more of a workflow expansion's inner jobs are status "skipped", consider that as a success, rather than a failure. Fixes https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/1490.
## 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: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12229
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12214Closes: #12204
The underlying git option was already changed in git 2.0.0 to use format `<mode>,<object>,<path>`. See ec160ae12b.
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12215
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12046
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.
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12077
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12023
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/6163
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3343
The merge base doctor check & fix was broken and could introduce irreversible "fixes" to wrong merge bases for PRs using the `fast-forward` and `rebase-and-merge` strategies.
The mergebase fix was originally introduced in a migration [0] to fix an existing issue [1] in the merge code in 2020.
Later added as a doctor command without explanation [2].
We decided to remove this check, as there is no apparent reason for it to still be necessary or any PR merge base state being out of sync with the current implementation.
It does more harm to keep the code in and there is no way to fix `fast-forward` and `rebase-and-merge` PRs, due to their merge implementation.
`fast-forward`: The git state inherently cannot reconstruct a merge base in this scenario by design.
`rebase-and-merge`: Is rebased on a temporary repository clone and thus might receive a different merge base, depending on how far the target branch is ahead.
[0]: 4a2b76d9c8
[1]: 4a2b76d9c8
[2]: d26885e2bf (diff-84d6d60112991392d6ba2cae4cd919fb3ee8afb8)
## 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).
### 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: Saibotk <git@saibotk.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12040
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11997Fixes#11968.
Adds deadlocks to the package `RetryTx` operations, and bumps the attempt count to 3. Technically this affects production code, not just test code, but the resulting failure is only likely to occur in highly concurrent operations when uploading packages to the debian registry for the first time for a user, which is more of a test artifact than a production likelihood.
Manually tested by modifying the `Makefile` to add the `-test.count=25` option to the test command. This failed consistently on my dev system before this change, failed consistently after the deadlock err was added, and then succeeded consistently (multiple runs) after both changes were combined, giving me confidence that the intermittent failure is squashed.
## 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.
- Fixing a test failure, so no new tests added, but they already failed.
- 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: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11998
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11988
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.
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11995
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11851
GitHub recently added the ability to [specify a time zone for scheduled workflows](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/workflow-syntax#onschedule), thereby making it possible to run scheduled workflows at a certain local time, no matter whether daylight saving time (DST) is currently active or not. Example copied from GitHub's documentation:
```yaml
on:
schedule:
- cron: '30 5 * * 1-5'
timezone: "America/New_York"
```
The workflow would run at 05:30 each morning in the America/New_York timezone every Monday through Friday. `timezone` accepts IANA time zone names. If `timezone` is absent, `Etc/UTC` is used. GitHub runs workflows that were scheduled during DST jumps forward, for example, between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock, directly after the clock jumped forward. In this case, that would be 3 o'clock.
Forgejo already supports time zones by prepending cron schedules with `TZ=<zone-id>` or `CRON_TZ=<zone-id>`:
```yaml
on:
schedule:
- cron: 'CRON_TZ=America/New_York 30 5 * * 1-5'
```
However, that capability is not documented. Workflows that are scheduled to run during DST changes are skipped when the clock jumps forward and run twice when it jumps backward.
This two-part PR adds support for `timezone` to improve compatibility with GitHub. `TZ` and `CRON_TZ` continue working. When both `timezone` and `TZ` or `CRON_TZ` are present, `timezone` takes precedence. When neither `timezone` nor `TZ` nor `CRON_TZ` are present, `Etc/UTC` is used as before. Because `TZ` and `CRON_TZ` were already supported by Forgejo before GitHub introduced `timezone`, `timezone` behaves during DST changes as previous versions of Forgejo, thereby deviating from GitHub. That means that workflows that are scheduled to run during DST changes are skipped when the clock jumps forward. And they run twice when it jumps backwards. However, it is generally recommended not to schedule workflows during the time of day when DST changes occur.
This part of the PR integrates the [workflow validation and parsing of the `timezone` field](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1454) supplied by Forgejo Runner.
## 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
- [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls/1853
- [ ] 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/11851): <!--number 11851 --><!--line 0 --><!--description c3VwcG9ydCBgdGltZXpvbmVgIGluIHNjaGVkdWxlZCB3b3JrZmxvd3M=-->support `timezone` in scheduled workflows<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11986
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11909Fixes#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.
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11984
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11956https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11750 missed a place where the attempt number is incremented independently. This caused the job view to break when running a reusable workflow with workflow expansion.
## 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
### 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.
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11964
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11881
Fixes an intermittent test failure in `TestPackageDebianConcurrent`, [example](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/148747/jobs/9/attempt/1#jobstep-5-981), introduced by testing in #11776. This one is caused by duplicate writes to `user_setting` to store a GPG key (questionable place for that...).
Confirmed reproduced in local testing and test now passes:
```
=== TestPackageDebianConcurrent (tests/test_utils.go:344)
=== TestPackageDebianConcurrent/Concurrent_Upload (tests/integration/api_packages_debian_test.go:334)
... other duplicate key violations ...
// TestPackageDebianConcurrent/Concurrent_Upload
"2026/03/29 10:31:57 ...dels/user/setting.go:210:func1() [E] [Error SQL Query] INSERT INTO \"gtestschema\".\"user_setting\" (\"user_id\",\"setting_key\",\"setting_value\") VALUES ($1,$2,$3) RETURNING \"id\" [2 debian.key.private -----BEGIN PGP PRIVATE KEY BLOCK-----
...snip...
-----END PGP PRIVATE KEY BLOCK-----] - ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint \"UQE_user_setting_key_userid\" (SQLSTATE 23505)",
PASS
```
No additional test required as it is already tripping a test failure.
## 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. (already present and failing)
- 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: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11906
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11776Fixes#11438.
Whenever a "unique constraint violation" error is encountered by package mutation, detect if a `xorm.ErrUniqueConstraintViolation` error occurs. If it does, retry the entire transaction.
## 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.
- [ ] 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.
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11833
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Forgejo Runner can optionally ask for a particular job. Example: `forgejo-runner one-job --handle 9d52c7d8-aebe-426b-b015-dd453aacaada`. This change adds the necessary job filtering to Forgejo.
See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/76 for the motivation and design considerations.
PR for the extension of the runner protocol: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/actions-proto/pulls/18
Related change in Forgejo Runner with usage example: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1443
## 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
### 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/11676): <!--number 11676 --><!--line 0 --><!--description YWxsb3cgcnVubmVycyB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGEgcGFydGljdWxhciBqb2I=-->allow runners to request a particular job<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11676
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Previously, a scheduled run would appear like a run triggered by a push. That could be confusing, especially if a scheduled run was unrelated to that particular commit. Now, either the workflow's name (taken from the field `name:`) is displayed or the path to workflow file, matching the behaviour of `workflow_dispatch`.
As a side-effect, the description of all run types were improved. They are no longer pieced together from individual translations. `workflow_dispatch` also no longer misattributes commits to the user that triggered the workflow.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11688.
## 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
### 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/11770
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Adds a user interface for creating repo-specific access tokens (#11311). When the new option "Specific repositories" is selected, a search option appears. Each repository in the search result has an "Add" button to include it on the access token, and once included, a repository can be removed with the "Remove" button. This is a JS-free form.
## 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
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/
README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
- Technically there are no "JavaScript changes" in this PR, but e2e tests were added for browser interaction testing.
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- TODO: planning to create documentation in https://forgejo.org/docs/next/user/token-scope/; there is none for public only tokens but I think this seems like a good place to add both.
- [ ] 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/11696
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
So far, Forgejo's UI only allowed to create Forgejo Actions secrets. But renaming or replacing their value wasn't possible. With this change, users can do both. The existing secret value is never revealed for security reasons.
Additionally, a confusing behaviour is removed. If a user created a new secret whose name matched an existing secret, the existing secret was silently updated. That does no longer happen. The new secret is rejected instead.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/5707.
## 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
### 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/11732
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Last known backend change for #11311, fixing up some loose ends on the repository APIs related to repo-specific access tokens.
Adds automated testing, and aligns permissions where necessary, to ensure that repo-specific access tokens can't change the administrative state of the repositories that they are limited to.
Repo-specific access tokens cannot be used to:
- convert a mirror into a normal repo,
- create a new repository from a template,
- transfer ownership of a repository
- create a new repository (already protected, but test automation added),
- delete a repository (already protected, but test automation added),
- editing a repository's settings (already protected, but test automation added).
**Breaking**: The template generation (`POST /repos/{template_owner}/{template_repo}/generate`) and repository deletion (`DELETE /repos/{username}/{reponame}`) APIs have been updated to require the same permission scope as creating a new repository. Either `write:user` or `write:organization` is required, depending on the owner of the repository being created or deleted.
## 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
- 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/11736
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Add information about the git repository for wiki pages to the
Repository response in the API:
- has_wiki_contents: info whether wiki git repository already exists
- wiki_clone_url: the git clone URL of the wiki git repository
- wiki_ssh_url: the git SSH URL of the wiki git repository
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11589
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: hwipl <hwipl@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: hwipl <hwipl@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR fixes a bug where the previously-implemented functionality to delete the `.gitea/template` or `.forgejo/template` file when generating a repository from a template was not working. The issue happened because the code was using `util.Remove()` with a relative path, but this resolves against the process working directory instead of the temporary clone directory. The fix was to use `root.Remove()` which is based on an `os.OpenRoot()` anchored at `tmpDir`.
Updated integration tests and verified that they pass with this change and fail without it.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11691
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Brandon Rothweiler <bdr9@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Brandon Rothweiler <bdr9@noreply.codeberg.org>
- fix: show oauth2 retrieve error
- `true` indicates it only should be shown when the page is rendered
directly via `ctx.HTML` and not propagated if it redirects. As you can
see this always redirects and means the error is not shown.
- Has the funny behavior that you get redirected to `/user/login`
without any indication what went wrong, no errors in the logs either.
- fix: pre-process OAuth2 client ID and secret
- Spaces should are not appropriate for these input, remove them.
- Manually copying and pasting client ID and secret from Github OAuth2
applications seems prone to introduce whitespaces.
- The error of having a incorrect client ID is more noticeable (404 page
for the user).
- The error of having a incorrect client secret is not noticeable (404
page for the goth library but no mention it's the wrong secret).
Reported-by: marijnh
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11715
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- Delete blocked users entries.
- Organization cannot get blocked, it can block other people however.
- Delete following entries.
- Organization cannot follow, it can be followed by users.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#11416
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11699
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- Deleting attachments are also seen as updating attachments due to the frontend always sending a field to edit the name even if the name didn't change. This was not reflected in the unit tests.
- Refactor the updating attachment logic to be more flexible if a attachment does not exist, because it was just deleted or because someone is being malicious.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#11636
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11642
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Forgejo Runner is deprecating the runner registration token. It is too powerful, requires tooling, and is unnecessary. As a consequence, users need new mechanisms for managing runners in Forgejo. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10677 added an HTTP API for runner registration. This PR adds the ability to manage runners using Forgejo's web interface.
Runners can be added, modified, and deleted. It is also possible to regenerate a runner's token. When a runner is added or a runner's token is regenerated, setup instructions are displayed. They explain how to alter Forgejo Runner's configuration file or how to launch `forgejo-runner daemon` (yet to be implemented). The existing details page has been overhauled and is now accessible to all users that are allowed to use a particular runner. The details page displays additional information that had to be removed from the list of runners due to space constraints. The task list is filtered. That means it only lists jobs of the respective repository, user, or organization.
The runner registration token has been marked as deprecated.
See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/88 for context and design considerations.
## 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
### 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.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*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/11516
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#11573
### 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.
*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/11588
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
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.
