System users (Ghost, ActionsUser, etc) have a negative id and may be the
author of a comment, either because it was created by a now deleted user
or via an action using a transient token.
The GetPossibleUserByID function has special cases related to system
users and will not fail if given a negative id.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1425
(cherry picked from commit 6a2d2fa243)
Fixes#27819
We have support for two factor logins with the normal web login and with
basic auth. For basic auth the two factor check was implemented at three
different places and you need to know that this check is necessary. This
PR moves the check into the basic auth itself.
Fixes#27598
In #27080, the logic for the tokens endpoints were updated to allow
admins to create and view tokens in other accounts. However, the same
functionality was not added to the DELETE endpoint. This PR makes the
DELETE endpoint function the same as the other token endpoints and adds unit tests
Closes#27455
> The mechanism responsible for long-term authentication (the 'remember
me' cookie) uses a weak construction technique. It will hash the user's
hashed password and the rands value; it will then call the secure cookie
code, which will encrypt the user's name with the computed hash. If one
were able to dump the database, they could extract those two values to
rebuild that cookie and impersonate a user. That vulnerability exists
from the date the dump was obtained until a user changed their password.
>
> To fix this security issue, the cookie could be created and verified
using a different technique such as the one explained at
https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies.
The PR removes the now obsolete setting `COOKIE_USERNAME`.
assert.Fail() will continue to execute the code while assert.FailNow()
not. I thought those uses of assert.Fail() should exit immediately.
PS: perhaps it's a good idea to use
[require](https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/stretchr/testify/require)
somewhere because the assert package's default behavior does not exit
when an error occurs, which makes it difficult to find the root error
reason.
- Currently in the cron tasks, the 'Previous Time' only displays the
previous time of when the cron library executes the function, but not
any of the manual executions of the task.
- Store the last run's time in memory in the Task struct and use that,
when that time is later than time that the cron library has executed
this task.
- This ensures that if an instance admin manually starts a task, there's
feedback that this task is/has been run, because the task might be run
that quick, that the status icon already has been changed to an
checkmark,
- Tasks that are executed at startup now reflect this as well, as the
time of the execution of that task on startup is now being shown as
'Previous Time'.
- Added integration tests for the API part, which is easier to test
because querying the HTML table of cron tasks is non-trivial.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/949
(cherry picked from commit fd34fdac14)
---------
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
- MySQL 5.7 support and testing is dropped
- MySQL tests now execute against 8.1, up from 5.7 and 8.0
- PostgreSQL 10 and 11 support ist dropped
- PostgreSQL tests now execute against 16, up from 15
- MSSQL 2008 support is dropped
- MSSQL tests now run against locked 2022 version
Fixes: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25657
Ref: https://endoflife.date/mysql
Ref: https://endoflife.date/postgresql
Ref: https://endoflife.date/mssqlserver
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
Support for MySQL 5.7, PostgreSQL 10 and 11, and MSSQL 2008 is dropped.
You are encouraged to upgrade to supported versions.
---------
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.com>
Part of #27065
This PR touches functions used in templates. As templates are not static
typed, errors are harder to find, but I hope I catch it all. I think
some tests from other persons do not hurt.
Blank Issues should be enabled if they are not explicit disabled through
the `blank_issues_enabled` field of the Issue Config. The Implementation
has currently a Bug: If you create a Issue Config file with only
`contact_links` and without a `blank_issues_enabled` field,
`blank_issues_enabled` is set to false by default.
The fix is only one line, but I decided to also improve the tests to
make sure there are no other problems with the Implementation.
This is a bugfix, so it should be backported to 1.20.
Part of #27065
This reduces the usage of `db.DefaultContext`. I think I've got enough
files for the first PR. When this is merged, I will continue working on
this.
Considering how many files this PR affect, I hope it won't take to long
to merge, so I don't end up in the merge conflict hell.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Currently, Artifact does not have an expiration and automatic cleanup
mechanism, and this feature needs to be added. It contains the following
key points:
- [x] add global artifact retention days option in config file. Default
value is 90 days.
- [x] add cron task to clean up expired artifacts. It should run once a
day.
- [x] support custom retention period from `retention-days: 5` in
`upload-artifact@v3`.
- [x] artifacts link in actions view should be non-clickable text when
expired.
They currently throw a Internal Server Error when you use them without a
token. Now they correctly return a `token is required` error.
This is no security issue. If you use this endpoints with a token that
don't have the correct permission, you get the correct error. This is
not affected by this PR.
1. The old `prepareQueryArg` did double-unescaping of form value.
2. By the way, remove the unnecessary `ctx.Flash = ...` in
`MockContext`.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Just like `models/unittest`, the testing helper functions should be in a
separate package: `contexttest`
And complete the TODO:
> // TODO: move this function to other packages, because it depends on
"models" package
This PR implements a proposal to clean up the admin users table by
moving some information out to a separate user details page (which also
displays some additional information).
Other changes:
- move edit user page from `/admin/users/{id}` to
`/admin/users/{id}/edit` -> `/admin/users/{id}` now shows the user
details page
- show if user is instance administrator as a label instead of a
separate column
- separate explore users template into a page- and a shared one, to make
it possible to use it on the user details page
- fix issue where there was no margin between alert message and
following content on admin pages
<details>
<summary>Screenshots</summary>
</details>
Partially resolves#25939
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/580
- Return a `upload_field` to any release API response, which points to
the API URL for uploading new assets.
- Adds unit test.
- Adds integration testing to verify URL is returned correctly and that
upload endpoint actually works
---------
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fixes: #26333.
Previously, this endpoint only updates the `StatusCheckContexts` field
when `EnableStatusCheck==true`, which makes it impossible to clear the
array otherwise.
This patch uses slice `nil`-ness to decide whether to update the list of
checks. The field is ignored when either the client explicitly passes in
a null, or just omits the field from the json ([which causes
`json.Unmarshal` to leave the struct field
unchanged](https://go.dev/play/p/Z2XHOILuB1Q)). I think this is a better
measure of intent than whether the `EnableStatusCheck` flag was set,
because it matches the semantics of other field types.
Also adds a test case. I noticed that [`testAPIEditBranchProtection`
only checks the branch
name](c1c83dbaec/tests/integration/api_branch_test.go (L68))
and no other fields, so I added some extra `GET` calls and specific
checks to make sure the fields are changing properly.
I added those checks the existing integration test; is that the right
place for it?
