mirror of
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo.git
synced 2026-05-17 00:06:35 +00:00
ef5479af71
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>
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| alpine | ||
| alt | ||
| arch | ||
| cargo | ||
| chef | ||
| composer | ||
| conan | ||
| conda | ||
| container | ||
| cran | ||
| debian | ||
| generic | ||
| goproxy | ||
| helm | ||
| helper | ||
| maven | ||
| npm | ||
| nuget | ||
| pub | ||
| pypi | ||
| rpm | ||
| rubygems | ||
| swift | ||
| vagrant | ||
| api.go | ||
| README.md | ||
Gitea Package Registry
This document gives a brief overview how the package registry is organized in code.
Structure
The package registry code is divided into multiple modules to split the functionality and make code reuse possible.
| Module | Description |
|---|---|
models/packages |
Common methods and models used by all registry types |
models/packages/<type> |
Methods used by specific registry type. There should be no need to use type specific models. |
modules/packages |
Common methods and types used by multiple registry types |
modules/packages/<type> |
Registry type specific methods and types (e.g. metadata extraction of package files) |
routers/api/packages |
Route definitions for all registry types |
routers/api/packages/<type> |
Route implementation for a specific registry type |
services/packages |
Helper methods used by registry types to handle common tasks like package creation and deletion in routers |
services/packages/<type> |
Registry type specific methods used by routers and services |
Models
Every package registry implementation uses the same underlying models:
| Model | Description |
|---|---|
Package |
The root of a package providing values fixed for every version (e.g. the package name) |
PackageVersion |
A version of a package containing metadata (e.g. the package description) |
PackageFile |
A file of a package describing its content (e.g. file name) |
PackageBlob |
The content of a file (may be shared by multiple files) |
PackageProperty |
Additional properties attached to Package, PackageVersion or PackageFile (e.g. used if metadata is needed for routing) |
The following diagram shows the relationship between the models:
Package <1---*> PackageVersion <1---*> PackageFile <*---1> PackageBlob
Adding a new package registry type
Before adding a new package registry type have a look at the existing implementation to get an impression of how it could work.
Most registry types offer endpoints to retrieve the metadata, upload and download package files.
The upload endpoint is often the heavy part because it must validate the uploaded blob, extract metadata and create the models.
The methods to validate and extract the metadata should be added in the modules/packages/<type> package.
If the upload is valid the methods in services/packages allow to store the upload and create the corresponding models.
It depends if the registry type allows multiple files per package version which method should be called:
CreatePackageAndAddFile: error if package version already existsCreatePackageOrAddFileToExisting: error if file already existsAddFileToExistingPackage: error if package version does not exist or file already exists
services/packages also contains helper methods to download a file or to remove a package version.
There are no helper methods for metadata endpoints because they are very type specific.