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/12295
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10747
We need to take all matching required status into account to get the desired status because there can be some pending.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10787): <!--number 10787 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4OiBjb3JyZWN0bHkgY29tcHV0ZSByZXF1aXJlZCBjb21taXQgc3RhdHVz-->fix: correctly compute required commit status<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10787
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- The `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` APIs allow a user to link an issue in one repository as "depending upon" an issue in another repository. Forgejo's implementation had an incorrect permission check which would verify only that the user had write permissions on the issue being modified, and not on the issue it was linking to. Due to the incorrect permission check, it was possible to view limited information (the existence of, and title of) an issue in a private repository that the user does not have access to view. The permission check has been corrected to take into account visibility of the remote repository.
[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Fetching information about a release via the `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/releases/tag/{tag}` API endpoint did not check whether the release was a draft, allowing accessing to information about a draft release to users who could predict an upcoming release tag but didn't have access to view it. The missing check has been added, returning a 404 response when the release is not published.
[CVSS 6.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Forgejo's web interface allows deleting tags on a git repository through a form post. The endpoint for this form post had misconfigured middleware handlers which enforce security rights, allowing an anonymous user, or a logged-in user without the correct permissions, to delete tags on repositories that they did not own by injecting arbitrary internal tag identifiers into the form. The middleware handler configuration has been corrected.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When the head branch of a pull request matches a branch protection rule, the head branch should be able to be merged or rebased only according to the "Push" rules defined in the protection rule. An implementation error checked those branch protection rules in the context of the base repository rather than the head repository, allowing users with write access to the base repository to be considered able to push to the branch, bypassing the "Enable push" option's expected security control.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- An issue owner can manipulate form inputs to delete the content history of comments they did not create, as long as those comments are on issues that they own. Although comment content is not affected, the history of edits on the comment can be trimmed. The validation in the form handler was corrected.
[CVSS 5.1 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When a repository is configured with tag protection rules, it should not be possible for a user that is outside the whitelisted users or teams from modifying the protected tags. An incorrect parameter being passed to a security verification method allowed a user with write access to the repo to delete tags even if they were protected, as long as the tag was originally created by a user who is still authorized by the protection rules.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Security bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039): <!--number 10039 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGZpeCBkZXBlbmRlbmN5IHJlcG8gcGVybXMgaW4gQ3JlYXRlL1JlbW92ZUlzc3VlRGVwZW5kZW5jeQ==-->fix(api): fix dependency repo perms in Create/RemoveIssueDependency<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039): <!--number 10039 --><!--line 1 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGRyYWZ0IHJlbGVhc2VzIGNvdWxkIGJlIHJlYWQgYmVmb3JlIGJlaW5nIHB1Ymxpc2hlZA==-->fix(api): draft releases could be read before being published<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039): <!--number 10039 --><!--line 2 --><!--description bWlzY29uZmlndXJlZCBzZWN1cml0eSBjaGVja3Mgb24gdGFnIGRlbGV0ZSB3ZWIgZm9ybQ==-->misconfigured security checks on tag delete web form<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039): <!--number 10039 --><!--line 3 --><!--description aW5jb3JyZWN0IGxvZ2ljIGluICJVcGRhdGUgUFIiIGRpZCBub3QgZW5mb3JjZSBoZWFkIGJyYW5jaCBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIHJ1bGVzIGNvcnJlY3RseQ==-->incorrect logic in "Update PR" did not enforce head branch protection rules correctly<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039): <!--number 10039 --><!--line 4 --><!--description aXNzdWUgb3duZXIgY2FuIGRlbGV0ZSBhbm90aGVyIHVzZXIncyBjb21tZW50J3MgZWRpdCBoaXN0b3J5IG9uIHNhbWUgaXNzdWU=-->issue owner can delete another user's comment's edit history on same issue<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039): <!--number 10039 --><!--line 5 --><!--description dGFnIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gcnVsZXMgY2FuIGJlIGJ5cGFzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0YWcgZGVsZXRlIG9wZXJhdGlvbg==-->tag protection rules can be bypassed during tag delete operation<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Joshua Rogers <MegaManSec@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10039
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
**Backport: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189**
This is a clean cherry-pick codewise. There was a minor conflict to resolve in the tests:
```
Conflicts:
tests/integration/patch_status_test.go
the test file did not exist at all in v11 and was added as is with
one exception: `ObjectFormat: optional.Some("sha256"),` was
commented out.
```
---
Automerge can be ignored when the following race happens:
* Conflict check is happening on a repository and
`pr.Status = issues_model.PullRequestStatusChecking` for all open pull
requests (this happens every time a pull request is merged).
* While the conflict check is ongoing, an event (Forgejo Actions being
successful for instance) happens and and `StartPRCheckAndAutoMerge*` is called.
* Because `pr.CanAutoMerge()` is false, the pull request is not
selected and not added to the automerge queue.
* When the conflict check completes and `pr.CanAutoMerge()` becomes
true, there no longer is a task in the auto merge queue and the
auto merge does not happen.
This is fixed by adding a task to the auto merge queue when the conflict check for a pull request completes. This is done when the mutx protecting the conflict check task is released to prevent a deadlock when a synchronous queues are used in the following situation:
* the conflict check task finds the pull request is mergeable
* it schedules the auto merge tasks that finds it must be merged
* merging concludes with scheduling a conflict check task
Avoid an extra loop where a conflict check task queues an auto merge task that will schedule a conflict check task if the pull request can be merged. The auto merge row is removed from the database before merging. It would otherwise be removed after the merge commit is received via the git hook which happens asynchronously and can lead to a race.
StartPRCheckAndAutoMerge is modified to re-use HeadCommitID when available, such as when called after a pull request conflict check.
---
A note on tests: they cover the new behavior, i.e. automerge being triggered by a successful conflict check. This is also on the critical paths for every test that involve creating, merging or updating a pull request.
- `tests/integration/git_test.go`
- `tests/integration/actions_commit_status_test.go`
- `tests/integration/api_helper_for_declarative_test.go`
- `tests/integration/patch_status_test.go`
- `tests/integration/pull_merge_test.go`
The [missing fixture file](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189/files#diff-b86fdd79108b3ba3cb2e56ffcfd1be2a7b32f46c) for the auto merge table can be verified to be necessary simply by removing it an observing that the integration tests fail.
The [scheduling of the auto merge task](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189/files#diff-9489262e93967f6bb2db41837f37c06f4e70d978) in `testPR` can be verified to be required by moving it in the `testPRProtected` function and observing that the tests hang forever because of the deadlock.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189): <!--number 8189 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZG8gbm90IGlnbm9yZSBhdXRvbWVyZ2Ugd2hpbGUgYSBQUiBpcyBjaGVja2luZyBmb3IgY29uZmxpY3Rz-->do not ignore automerge while a PR is checking for conflicts<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8456
Reviewed-by: Lucas <sclu1034@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
- Make use of `test.MockVariableValue` to override variables for the
duration of the test.
- Don't needlessly call `onGiteaRun`, its only needed when a HTTP server
needs to be called by the code.
- When `onGiteaRun` is used, make use of the passed parameters, such as
the passed `*testing.T` variable and `*url.URL` (this also avoids
needing to serve the routers in the test code again).
- Use `(*url.URL).JoinPath` to craft new URLs.
- Don't override `setting.AppURL` & `setting.Database.LogSQL` when its
does not affect the test.
- Add empty fixture files for `FederatedUser` & `FederationHost` so they
are truncated and do not persist between tests.
Fix#31423
(cherry picked from commit f4b8f6fc40ce2869135372a5c6ec6418d27ebfba)
Conflicts:
models/fixtures/comment.yml
comment fixtures have to be shifted because there is one more in Forgejo
This reverts commit 4ed372af13.
This change from Gitea was not considered by the Forgejo UI team and there is a consensus that it feels like a regression.
The test which was added in that commit is kept and modified to test that reviews can successfully be submitted on closed and merged PRs.
Closesforgejo/design#11
Running git update-index for every individual file is slow, so add and
remove everything with a single git command.
When such a big commit lands in the default branch, it could cause PR
creation and patch checking for all open PRs to be slow, or time out
entirely. For example, a commit that removes 1383 files was measured to
take more than 60 seconds and timed out. With this change checking took
about a second.
This is related to #27967, though this will not help with commits that
change many lines in few files.
(cherry picked from commit b88e5fc72d99e9d4a0aa9c13f70e0a9e967fe057)
Enable [unparam](https://github.com/mvdan/unparam) linter.
Often I could not tell the intention why param is unused, so I put
`//nolint` for those cases like webhook request creation functions never
using `ctx`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
(cherry picked from commit fc2d75f86d77b022ece848acf2581c14ef21d43b)
Conflicts:
modules/setting/config_env.go
modules/storage/azureblob.go
services/webhook/dingtalk.go
services/webhook/discord.go
services/webhook/feishu.go
services/webhook/matrix.go
services/webhook/msteams.go
services/webhook/packagist.go
services/webhook/slack.go
services/webhook/telegram.go
services/webhook/wechatwork.go
run make lint-go and fix Forgejo specific warnings
This PR introduces the `ReviewedOn` and `ReviewedBy` variables for the
default merge message templates (e.g.,
`.gitea/default_merge_message/MERGE_TEMPLATE.md`).
This allows customizing the default merge messages while retaining these
trailers.
This also moves the associated logic out of `pull.tmpl` into the
relevant Go function.
This is a first contribution towards #11077.
---
For illustration, this allows to recreate the "default default" merge
message with the following template:
```
.gitea/default_merge_message/MERGE_TEMPLATE.md
Merge pull request '${PullRequestTitle}' (${PullRequestReference}) from ${HeadBranch} into ${BaseBranch}
${ReviewedOn}
${ReviewedBy}
```
(cherry picked from commit da4bbc42477ba04d175cc0775a0c5ec90c4c24fe)
Conflicts:
docs/content/usage/merge-message-templates.en-us.md
not in Forgejo
templates/repo/issue/view_content/pull.tmpl
trivial context conflict
The right to force merge is uses the wrong predicate and
applies to instance admins:
ctx.user.IsAdmin
It must apply to repository admins and use the following predicate:
ctx.userPerm.IsAdmin()
This regression is from the ApplyToAdmins implementation in
79b7089360.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3780
Merging PR may fail because of various problems. The pull request may
have a dirty state because there is no transaction when merging a pull
request. ref
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/25741#issuecomment-2074126393
This PR moves all database update operations to post-receive handler for
merging a pull request and having a database transaction. That means if
database operations fail, then the git merging will fail, the git client
will get a fail result.
There are already many tests for pull request merging, so we don't need
to add a new one.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit ebf0c969403d91ed80745ff5bd7dfbdb08174fc7)
Conflicts:
modules/private/hook.go
routers/private/hook_post_receive.go
trivial conflicts because
263a716cb5 * Performance optimization for git push (#30104)
was not cherry-picked and because of
998a431747 Do not update PRs based on events that happened before they existed
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/25812#issuecomment-2099833692
Follow #30573
(cherry picked from commit f7d2f695a4c57b245830a526e77fa62e99e00254)
Conflicts:
services/pull/check.go
trivial conflict because
9b2536b78fdcd3cf444a2f54857d9871e153858f Update misspell to 0.5.1 and add `misspellings.csv` (#30573)
was not cherry-picked
More about codespell: https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell .
I personally introduced it to dozens if not hundreds of projects already and so far only positive feedback.
```
❯ grep lint-spell Makefile
@echo " - lint-spell lint spelling"
@echo " - lint-spell-fix lint spelling and fix issues"
lint: lint-frontend lint-backend lint-spell
lint-fix: lint-frontend-fix lint-backend-fix lint-spell-fix
.PHONY: lint-spell
lint-spell: lint-codespell
.PHONY: lint-spell-fix
lint-spell-fix: lint-codespell-fix
❯ git grep lint- -- .forgejo/
.forgejo/workflows/testing.yml: - run: make --always-make -j$(nproc) lint-backend checks-backend # ensure the "go-licenses" make target runs
.forgejo/workflows/testing.yml: - run: make lint-frontend
```
so how would you like me to invoke `lint-codespell` on CI? (without that would be IMHO very suboptimal and let typos sneak in)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3270
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>
Co-committed-by: Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>
Resolve all cases for `unused parameter` and `unnecessary type
arguments`
Related: #30729
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit e80466f7349164ce4cf3c07bdac30d736d20f035)
Conflicts:
modules/markup/markdown/transform_codespan.go
modules/setting/incoming_email.go
routers/api/v1/admin/user_badge.go
routers/private/hook_pre_receive.go
tests/integration/repo_search_test.go
resolved by discarding the change, this is linting only and
for the sake of avoiding future conflicts
Noteable additions:
- `redefines-builtin-id` forbid variable names that shadow go builtins
- `empty-lines` remove unnecessary empty lines that `gofumpt` does not
remove for some reason
- `superfluous-else` eliminate more superfluous `else` branches
Rules are also sorted alphabetically and I cleaned up various parts of
`.golangci.yml`.
(cherry picked from commit 74f0c84fa4245a20ce6fb87dac1faf2aeeded2a2)
Conflicts:
.golangci.yml
apply the linter recommendations to Forgejo code as well
* Split TestPullRequest out of AddTestPullRequestTask
* A Created field is added to the Issue table
* The Created field is set to the time (with nano resolution) on creation
* Record the nano time repo_module.PushUpdateOptions is created by the hook
* The decision to update a pull request created before a commit was
pushed is based on the time (with nano resolution) the git hook
was run and the Created field
It ensures the following happens:
* commit C is pushed
* the git hook queues AddTestPullRequestTask for processing and returns with success
* TestPullRequest is not called yet
* a pull request P with commit C as the head is created
* TestPullRequest runs and ignores P because it was created after the commit was received
When the "created" column is NULL, no verification is done, pull
requests that were created before the column was created in the
database cannot be newer than the latest call to a git hook.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Resolves#29965.
---
Manually tested this by:
- Following the
[installation](https://docs.gitea.com/next/installation/install-with-docker#basics)
guide (but built a local Docker image instead)
- Creating 2 users, one who is the `Owner` of a newly-created repository
and the other a `Collaborator`
- Had the `Collaborator` create a PR that the `Owner` reviews
- `Collaborator` resolves conversation and `Owner` merges PR
And with this change we see that we can no longer see re-request review
button for the `Owner`:
<img width="1351" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-25 at 12 39 18 AM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/60799661/bcd9c579-3cf7-474f-a51e-b436fe1a39a4">
(cherry picked from commit 242b331260925e604150346e61329097d5731e77)
- Currently protected branch rules do not apply to admins, however in
some cases (like in the case of Forgejo project) you might also want to
apply these rules to admins to avoid accidental merges.
- Add new option to configure this on a per-rule basis.
- Adds integration tests.
- Resolves#65
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28297
This PR also fixed a problem that it needs a database transaction when
removing the WIP title.
---
Resolves#2771
Also partially ports gitea#29783
(cherry picked from commit 17d7ab5ad4ce3d0fbc1251572c22687c237a30b1)
The fix against the race incorrectly assumes the sha of the commit being
pushed belongs to the base repository. It finds the highest possible
pull request ID from the head repository instead of looking it up in
the base repository.
Figuring out if a PR was created in the future based on the highest
index of the base repository would require collecting all of them
because there is no way to know in advance which repository may be
involved in the race.
Fixing this race can be done either by:
* Introducing a new field in the pull_request table https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2842
which feels more like a hack than a real solution
* Refactoring the logic
which would be a significant undertaking
The race has been in the codebase for a very long time and manifests
itself in the CI, when events happen in quick succession. The only
concrete manifestation was however fixed by https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Since this race now only exists in theory and not in practice, let's
revert this bugous commit until a proper solution is implemented.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2817
This reverts commit 036f1eddc5.
Conflicts:
services/pull/pull.go
(cherry picked from commit f8ab9dafb7a173a35e9308f8f784735b0f822439)
Conflicts:
routers/web/repo/fork.go
trivial context conflict, the file does not exist in Forgejo
This PR will avoid load pullrequest.Issue twice in pull request list
page. It will reduce x times database queries for those WIP pull
requests.
Partially fix#29585
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit 62f8174aa2fae1481c7e17a6afcb731a5b178cd0)
Conflicts:
models/activities/notification_list.go
moved to models/activities/notification.go
It's unnecessary to detect the repository object format from git
repository. Just use the repository's object format name.
(cherry picked from commit 3c6fc25a77c37d50686caa495d27a31dcef7f75f)
Conflicts:
services/pull/pull.go
Since `modules/context` has to depend on `models` and many other
packages, it should be moved from `modules/context` to
`services/context` according to design principles. There is no logic
code change on this PR, only move packages.
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/context` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context`
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/contexttest` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/contexttest` because of depending on
context
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/upload` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload` because of depending on
context
(cherry picked from commit 29f149bd9f517225a3c9f1ca3fb0a7b5325af696)
Conflicts:
routers/api/packages/alpine/alpine.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_reaction.go
routers/install/install.go
routers/web/admin/config.go
routers/web/passkey.go
routers/web/repo/search.go
routers/web/repo/setting/default_branch.go
routers/web/user/home.go
routers/web/user/profile.go
tests/integration/editor_test.go
tests/integration/integration_test.go
tests/integration/mirror_push_test.go
trivial context conflicts
also modified all other occurrences in Forgejo specific files
Now we can get object format name from git command line or from the
database repository table. Assume the column is right, we don't need to
read from git command line every time.
This also fixed a possible bug that the object format is wrong when
migrating a sha256 repository from external.
<img width="658" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/81045/6e9a9dcf-13bf-4267-928b-6bf2c2560423">
(cherry picked from commit b79c30435f439af8243ee281310258cdf141e27b)
Conflicts:
routers/web/repo/blame.go
services/agit/agit.go
context
With this option, it is possible to require a linear commit history with
the following benefits over the next best option `Rebase+fast-forward`:
The original commits continue existing, with the original signatures
continuing to stay valid instead of being rewritten, there is no merge
commit, and reverting commits becomes easier.
Closes#24906
* Split TestPullRequest out of AddTestPullRequestTask
* Before scheduling the task, AddTestPullRequestTask stores the max
index of the repository
* When the task runs, it does not take into account pull requests that
have an index higher than the recorded max index
When AddTestPullRequestTask is called with isSync == true, it is the
direct consequence of a new commit being pushed. Forgejo knows nothing
of this new commit yet. If a PR is created later and its head
references the new commit, it will have an index that is higher and
must not be taken into account. It would be acting and triggering a
notification for a PR based on an event that happened before it
existed.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2236
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
(cherry picked from commit b3be895a30)
