When attempting to render a markdown code block that does not have a language set in it, Forgejo will fail to render and log an error:
```
2026/04/29 08:47:47 ...markdown/markdown.go:162:func1() [W] Unable to render markdown due to panic in goldmark: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
```
This is a regression introduced by #12056.
## 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.
- pre-release regression
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12325
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Enables and tests the usage of Authorized Integrations to access the package registries. Specific testing includes:
- Container registry -- automated testing and manual testing
- Generic registry, w/ detailed authorization tests -- automated testing
- Conan registry -- automated testing (uses an "authenticate" endpoint that required updates)
- npm registry -- manual testing with a Forgejo Action publishing packages
For the container & conan registeries, where the client uses an authentication endpoint to request a temporary access token, the expiry of the temporary access token is restricted to the expiry of the authorized integration's JWT for the authorized integration in order to prevent an escalation of privileges.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12310
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
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/12292
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Allows the creation of an authorized integration as a Forgejo administrator, either for development testing or to support server-automation. Clipping out the CLI config options, looks like:
```
NAME:
forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration - Create an authorized integration for a specific user
USAGE:
forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration [options]
OPTIONS:
--username string, -u string Username
--issuer string JWT issuer ('iss' claim), example: https://forgejo.example.org/api/actions
--claim-eq string=string [ --claim-eq string=string ] Zero-or-more claim equality checks, formatted as claim=value, example: "actor=someuser"
--claim-glob string=string [ --claim-glob string=string ] Zero-or-more claim glob checks, formatted as claim=value, example: "sub=repo:forgejo/*:pull_request"
--scope string [ --scope string ] One-or-more scopes to apply to access token, examples: "all", "read:issue", "write:repository" (default: "all")
--repo string [ --repo string ] Zero-or-more specific repositories that can be accessed, or "all" to allow access to all repositories, example: "owner1/repo1" (default: "all")
```
As an example, this will create an authorized integration that will permit Codeberg's Forgejo Actions to generate trusted JWTs that can access the local user `mfenniak`:
```bash
$ ./forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration \
--username mfenniak \
--issuer https://codeberg.org/api/actions \
--claim-eq sub=repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request \
--scope read:user
{
"message": "Authorized integration was successfully created.",
"issuer": "https://codeberg.org/api/actions",
"audience": "u:1:c97d83bc-fa4e-4db3-b898-414cd5b6ce33",
"claim_rules": [
{
"description": "\"sub\" = \"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request\"",
"claim": "sub",
"compare": "eq",
"value": "repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"
}
]
}
```
The output is a JSON document to aid in use in automation. The `audience` field is the audience generated by Forgejo that must be used by the remote to generate the JWT. Continuing this example to the client-side, a matching Forgejo Action like this in the `mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo` repo, for a `pull_request` event, then it will be able to access the Forgejo server that the authorized integration was created on like this:
```yaml
on:
pull_request:
enable-openid-connect: true
jobs:
job1:
runs-on: docker
steps:
- name: Fetch JWT
id: jwt
run: |
set -eux -o pipefail
set +x
jwt=$(curl --fail \
-H "Authorization: bearer $ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_TOKEN" "$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL&audience=u:1:c97d83bc-fa4e-4db3-b898-414cd5b6ce33" \
| jq -r ".value")
echo "::add-mask::$jwt"
set -x
echo "jwt=$jwt" >> $FORGEJO_OUTPUT
- name: API call to Forgejo
run: |
curl \
-v --fail \
-H "Authorization: bearer ${{ steps.jwt.outputs.jwt }}" \
"https://example.org/api/v1/user" | jq
```
CLI command is tested manually. Supporting functions have associated unit tests.
## 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.
- CLI update should be automatic in docs -- more detailed Authorized Integration documentation is on my project plan.
### 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/12299
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
@viceice was getting error 500 trying to post this PR an hour ago. This commit is solely authored by him.
Co-authored-by: viceice <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12304
Enhances authorized integrations (#12261) with a cache of the remote OpenID Connect descriptor file and JSON Web Key Set (JWKS), improving runtime performance and reducing intermittent reliability risks. By default a 10 minute cache is used, configurable through `[authorized_integration].CACHE_TTL`.
To mock the cache for testing, mockery code generation is added, and a previous manually generated mock for `AuthorizationReducer` was replaced with the code generation.
## 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.
- [ ] 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.
- Authorized integrations are not yet exposed to end-users.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12275
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `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/12296
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
This change introduces a Path method on the TreeEntry struct, that
collects the path by moving upwards in the tree.
The existing FollowSymlink(s) methods interface has been changed, the
previously returned string has been removed, as after the fix it wasn't
used anywhere.
Fixes: #9931
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12246
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
... from #11194 / 0034e55965
Revert a test code change left over from an intermediate development step which is not needed, because the LFS JWT config is tested in lfs.TestAuthenticate()
Fixes#12263
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [X] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [X] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*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/12281
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR is replacing repository based hooks hooks with centralised files, this way the files don't need to be copied into every repository, only one line of config need to be added in the repository.
Closes: #3523
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10397
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Previous similar PR: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11879.
Moved strings from INI to JSON. Some directly, some with keys updated to be consistent. The latter was done carefully, making sure all usages are updated, and was tested locally.
There are more deletions than insertions because some languages also had some extra empty lines removed.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12280
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
This PR contains the following updates:
| Update | Change |
|---|---|
| lockFileMaintenance | All locks refreshed |
🔧 This Pull Request updates lock files to use the latest dependency versions.
---
### Configuration
📅 **Schedule**: (UTC)
- Branch creation
- Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM, only on Monday (`* 0-3 * * 1`)
- Automerge
- Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM (`* 0-3 * * *`)
🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.
♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.
👻 **Immortal**: This PR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get [config help](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions) if that's undesired.
---
- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box
---
This PR has been generated by [Mend Renovate](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate).
<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiI0My4xMzkuMCIsInVwZGF0ZWRJblZlciI6IjQzLjE0MS42IiwidGFyZ2V0QnJhbmNoIjoiZm9yZ2VqbyIsImxhYmVscyI6WyJkZXBlbmRlbmN5LXVwZ3JhZGUiLCJ0ZXN0L25vdC1uZWVkZWQiXX0=-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12279
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Built on #12266; one commit added.
Adds the ability to reduce the authorization scope of an authorized integration to public-only resources and repo-specific resources. Backend only -- no frontend created yet.
## 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
- [ ] 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/12267
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Built on #12261; one commit added.
Adds an integration test verifying that access to the API can be authenticated by an authorized integration.
## 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
- [ ] 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/12266
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Authorized Integrations is a new feature to allow users to define external systems which can generate JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) that Forgejo will trust in order to perform API access on behalf of that user. This is an authentication mechanism that requires zero preconfiguration of shared secrets, and instead establishes trust through short-lived secrets (JWTs) that are signed by the issuer, signatures are validated by comparison with published public keys, and a public-keys retrieved through well-known HTTP endpoints secured with TLS verification.
The primary goal of Authorized Integrations is to support a mechanism for Forgejo Actions to receive elevated, but controlled, additional access to Forgejo. More details as to what the end result will look like are available in the [design proposal](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004) on #3571.
This PR adds the core database storage and authentication verification for Authorized Integrations, with these capabilities:
- An Authorized Integration is resolved by a unique key of an "issuer" and an "audience". The value of "issuer" is defined by the remote integration, and the value of "audience" will incorporate a unique identifier generated by Forgejo.
- Example issuer: `https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com/` is the issuer for GitHub JWTs
- Example audience: `https://forgejo.example.org/-/mfenniak/authorized-integration/6cc55ba0` is the expected format for a random audience field that Forgejo will generate.
- JWTs can contain any number of claims, which are represented as a JSON object; Forgejo can validate these with a flexible policy.
- eg. a claim may be `{"sub": "repo:coolguy/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` indicating that an OIDC token was received from an Actions execution in a specific repo on a specific event.
- Authorized Integrations support a `ClaimRules` system which allows claim equal, glob, and nested object inspection.
- `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"eq","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` -- would validate that `sub` exactly equals the specific value
- `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"glob","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:*"}` -- would validate that `sub` matches the given string prefix but allow any event
- When a JWT is received on an incoming API call, Forgejo retrieves the Authorized Integration from the DB (if present), validates the token signature against a remote JWKS, validates the claims, and grants API access as the user with a permission scope defined on the Authorized Integration.
In addition to the unit testing provided here, this PR has been manually integration tested against three JWT issuing systems: Forgejo Actions, GitHub Actions, and AWS STS GetWebIdentityToken.
Careful consideration has been made of these security concerns:
- SSRF attacks against Forgejo are prevented by:
- having a blocklist on remote HTTP validation requests which prevent access to internal network resources,
- ensuring that authorized integrations are created by users with matching issuers, before attempting to validate tokens
- Resource utilization attacks against Forgejo are reduced by limiting the possible size of external metadata requests; when fetching `/.well-known/openid-configuration` and `jkws_uri`'s from remote, untrusted servers, a maximum response size of 16 kB is enforced
- Only well-known secure assymmetric JWT signing algorithms are supported -- in particular, the sketchy `none` JWT algorithm isn't supported.
- JWT validation is covered by extensive unit tests, covering validation of all JWT timestamps, validation of the issuers, validation of the issuer's documented supported signing algorithms.
This PR serves as a core, and many enhancements are required for this to be a usable system for users.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- Documentation updates for new config entries will be authored.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- Marking not visible as there's no mechanism to interact with this backend yet.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12261
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes#9371. Manually reproduced and tested by setting `action_run.triggering_user_id` to a non-existent user ID. Manually tested that runs can be cancelled in this state as well.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12271
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Unintentionally fixesforgejo/forgejo#11812 per tip https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12232#issuecomment-13580345
---
This is a second attempt to fix https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11116. The [first attempt](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11846) introduced a [regression](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12082) and needed to be [reverted](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12088).
What's different about this attempt is that several days of extra work have been invested in amending the CSS to ensure that no visual changes slip through as a side-effect of the structural changes to the HTML. This was surprisingly challenging, and I documented much of the journey in https://codeberg.org/henrycatalinismith/forgejo/issues/1.
In summary, the existing version of the "latest commit" row leans heavily on global styles that are universally applied to all `thead` elements inside `table` elements with the `ui` and `table` classes. The nature of the structural HTML changes necessary to fix the accessibility bug (this row can't be inside `thead`) is such that those universal styles no longer apply to this element and must be duplicated into new element-specific styles. Similarly, existing styles applying to non-`thead` table content has unwanted effects on this element once it moves into the `tbody` which needed to be counteracted.
The original PR already lays out the accessibility impact of this pull request in a good amount of details and so instead I'm going to use the space here to focus on comparing the visuals in the `forgejo` branch with those in this PR. There follow a few pretty boring identical before & after screenshots that are pixel-for-pixel identical with each other. I don't think you'll be able to spot any bugs by glancing at these and am more sharing them to provide an insight into where my attention has been during testing: the 380px wide mobile viewport, a larger desktop viewport, and the "commit message too long to fit in the available space" case. If you know of other troublesome cases for this code that aren't covered by what you see in these images then that could be a good thing to explore here.
Before | After
-|-
 | 
 | 
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12232
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Forgejo's `basic` and `oauth2` authentication methods perform five distinct types of authentication:
- Username and password authentication
- Personal access tokens
- OAuth2 access tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ forgejo.token }}` -- task-based static tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ env.ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN }}` JWT, which is the authentication method used for `upload-artifact` (mirroring GitHub's implementation)
`basic` and `oauth2` both supported almost all of these methods, resulting in quite a bit of code duplication between them. This PR splits personal access tokens into `access_token.go`, Action's task-based tokens into `action_task_token.go`, and Action's JWT tokens into `action_runtime_token.go`.
**Note:** There is one peculiar side-effect that is worth discussing. Previously, `Authorization: Basic ...` was handled by one complex code path in basic.go, and `Authorization: Bearer ...` was handled by another in oauth2.go, and if authorization failed and a 401 was returned, a single error message would be returned to the user. Now, as multiple authorization methods may look at `Authorization: Basic ...` and provide their own reason why authorization didn't work, a 401 response has multiple reasons for a lack of authorization listed:
```
401 Unauthorized
...
failure to authenticate with oauth2 access token: not a JWT
Basic authorization is not allowed while having security keys enrolled
access token does not exist [sha: notpassword]
task with token "notpassword": resource does not exist
```
A couple tests have been adapted to check that the result contains their expected response, rather than is equal-to or prefixed-with their expected result. This is caused by the "auth group" joining together any "invalid credentials" errors, and, to a certain extent it is useful to understand why the authorization request failed. But it's a bit obscure as well.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on integration testing for regression checks.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12236
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12142
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
#12202 began a refactor of Forgejo's authentication implementations by providing structured data on an authentication success. However, error cases were maintained as-is in that refactor, leaving a complex situation: what does returning an error from an authentication method mean?; does it mean that the authentication failed, or that a server error occurred? Can another authentication still be tried?
This PR changes authentication methods so that they can return one of four things:
- `AuthenticationSuccess` with an authentication result.
- `AuthenticationNotAttempted` which indicates that no credentials relevant for this authentication method were presented. If every method returned `AuthenticationNotAttempted`, then you would have an unauthenticated access.
- `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential` which indicates that credentials were present and failed validation -- a situation indicating a `401 Unauthorized`.
- `AuthenticationError` which indicates that an internal server error occurred and failed authentication -- indicating a `500 Internal Server Error`.
This paves the way for one more refactor coming next: `basic.go` and `oauth2.go` perform 3-4 different authentications each (access tokens, oauth JWTs, actions tokens, actions JWTs, and username/password). With the capability to return these more precise responses, these authentication methods can be split up into separate logic that isn't intertwined together.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on existing test suite, with changes for any compile errors -- the next refactor will simplify the auth methods so that they can be unit tested easily.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12231
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12224
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fixes: #12212
Sorry for this bug, I introduced it by not testing !10682 better. Now the `forbiddenPrefixPattern`-regex is compliant to the docu:
```
It cannot start with FORGEJO_, GITEA_, GITHUB_, or a number.
```
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12213
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: zokki <zokki.softwareschmiede@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: zokki <zokki.softwareschmiede@gmail.com>
## Context
the three commits in this series are the first step towards the goal of removing the special casing around `JWT_SECRET`, which is used for various modules via `GetGeneralTokenSigningSecret()`. Ultimately, I want to work towards enabling seamless migration away from general use of the common secret. To enable this, we need proper secret/key rotation support, that is, we need to allow for configuration of additional secrets/keys which are accepted for token validation, but not used to issue tokens.
I have this _Verifier_ support basically implemented, but this PR is not it.
This PR contains cleanup refactoring which I worked on before writing the _Verifier_ support, because I noticed that the existing secret/key handling across modules was inconsistent and required duplicated code.
I am submitting this part now to allow for incremental review of not too large a diff, and because these commits remained unchanged during two weeks since I moved on the the next task.
## The problem being addressed
Configuration of JWT signing secrets/keys was inconsistent:
Under `[oauth2]` the full configuration set was supported:
- `JWT_SIGNING_ALGORITHM` configured the algorithm
- `JWT_SECRET` configured a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- `JWT_SECRET_URI` configured a `file:` uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- `JWT_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE` configured a file for asymmetric algorithms
For `[server]`, the LFS module only supported `LFS_JWT_SECRET`, and the signing method was hardcoded to `HS256`
For `[actions]`, only asymmetric signing methods were supported via `ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_ALGORITHM` and `ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE`.
## ini unification
The proposed code centralizes ini parsing to always support the following ini keys:
- `[pfx]SIGNING_ALGORITHM` determines the algorithm
- `[pfx]SECRET` is a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- `[pfx]SECRET_URI` is the uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- `[pfx]SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE` is a file with a private key for asymmetric algorithms
`[pfx]` is specific to the module and chosen to support the existing ini keys
Centralizing this code and unifying the ini keys will come handy for at least the following reasons:
- consistent behavior across modules is easier to understand
- less duplicated code
- easier to expand later, which is my main motivation
## implementation notes
as might be apparent by the _take3_ branch name, this is the third iteration of this patch series. The main reason why I abandoned the other two is that I first tried to move all the key initialization into the code called from settings.go when the ini file is parsed. But that lead to a lot of friction with test cases, because private key files which are configured, but do not exist will get created and hence require a writable `AppDataPath` and additional clean up.
To avoid a lot of noise and complications in test cases, I kept the existing two stage process, where
- the settings component creates missing symmetric signing keys and writes them to the .ini
- the settings component creates a simple configuration struct
- which is then used from the module init to create the actual key, which also includes creating a private key file if asymmetric crypto is configured and the key file does not exist.
I would have wished this patch was a net negative in terms of LOCs, but I hope it contributes to clarity and many added lines are in test cases.
## Commits
Because sometimes PRs are merged as squashes with the PR text remaining, I am repeating here the individual messages of the individual commits for future reference:
### Refactor signing key initalization and oauth2 use of it
This commit is the first in a series towards the goal of addressing the
FIXME comment in modules/setting/oauth2.go to remove
GeneralTokenSigningSecret
To do it properly, the task also requires addition of signing secret/key
rotation: We ultimately want to be able to change a signing key, but
continue to accept the previous one. This is particularly relevant to
offer a path from GeneralTokenSigningSecret aka JWT_SECRET to new,
specific component key configuration, where it should be possible to add
the former JWT_SECRET as a key accepted for verification to enable a
seamless transition.
This perspective, in turn, calls for refactoring of the existing secret
initialization code to centralize the common functions of parsing
signing key related configuration directives: The oauth2 module
currently is the only component accepting symmetric and asymmetric keys,
with the limitation of the symmetric key being also the
GeneralTokenSigningSecret. Other components either enforce HS256 or
public key algorithms.
We should really give the choice of algorithm selection and avoid code
duplication in other places, so this commit
- generalizes setting parsing into a configuration struct: A prefix can
be provided, with which the common configuration directives are
processed:
- [pfx]SIGNING_ALGORITHM determines the algorithm
- [pfx]SECRET is a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- [pfx]SECRET_URI is the uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- [pfx]SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE is a file with a private key for asymmetric algorithms
- which is then accepted by jwtx.InitSigningKey() to create an actual
signing key
The reasons for the two stage process are explained in a long-ish
comment in modules/setting/security.go. In short, other options would
either violate sensible module boundaries or cause too much friction.
These other options have actually been tried, this is take 3 of the
proposed changes.
### Refactor services/lfs: Change token code to use SigningKey
This now also enables use of token algorithms other than HS256.
In this case, signing key initialization also happens during settings
initialization, because LFS is also used in CLI commands.
### Refactor api/actions to use new signingkey API
This now also enables use of symmetric token algorithms.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11194
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Closes: #12204
The underlying git option was already changed in git 2.0.0 to use format `<mode>,<object>,<path>`. See ec160ae12b.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12214
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(not applicable — Go-only change)
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
## Summary
Add public REST API endpoints under `/api/v1/` for listing, inspecting, downloading, and deleting Actions artifacts. Previously, artifacts could only be accessed through the web UI or the internal runner API.
### New endpoints
| Method | Path | Description |
|--------|------|-------------|
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts` | List all artifacts for a repository |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runs/{run_id}/artifacts` | List artifacts for a workflow run |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Get artifact metadata |
| `GET` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip` | Download artifact as zip |
| `DELETE` | `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/artifacts/{artifact_id}` | Delete an artifact |
- List endpoints support `page`, `limit`, and `name` query parameters
- Both v1-v3 (multi-file, zip on-the-fly) and v4 (single zip) artifact backends are supported
- Expired artifacts are listed with `expired: true` but cannot be downloaded
- Delete requires write permission; all other endpoints require read permission
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12140
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Co-committed-by: ShellWen <me@shellwen.com>
Move the logic for handling reruns of Forgejo Action workflows and individual jobs to services. That is a prerequisite for adding the corresponding HTTP API endpoints.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12141
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Resources in Forgejo can also be owned by predefined system users like Ghost or Forgejo Actions. Those have negative user IDs, for example, -2 in the case of Forgejo Actions. `OwnerID` checks oftentimes do not take these users into account, because their existence and how they work isn't well known. A [semgrep](https://semgrep.dev/) check is added that flags such suspicious `OwnerID` checks.
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12144 for background.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12184
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
