- The `<title>` element that lives inside the `<head>` element is an important element that gives browsers and search engine crawlers the title of the webpage, hence the element name. It's therefor important that this title is accurate.
- Currently there are three issues with titles on repositories. It doesn't use the `FullName` and instead only uses the repository name, this doesn't distinguish which user or organisation the repository is on. It doesn't show the full treepath in the title when visiting an file inside a directory and instead only uses the latest path in treepath. It can show the repository name twice if the `.Title` variable also included the repository name such as on the repository homepage.
- Use the repository's fullname (which include which user the repository is on) instead of just their name.
- Display the repository's fullname if it isn't already in `.Title`.
- Use the full treepath in the repository code view instead of just the
last path.
- Adds integration tests.
- Adds a new repository (`repo59`) that has 3 depths for folders, which
wasn't in any other fixture repository yet, so the full treepath for
could be properly tested.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1276
(cherry picked from commit ff9a6a2cda)
(cherry picked from commit 76dffc8621)
(cherry picked from commit ff0615b9d0)
(cherry picked from commit 8712eaa394)
- The code and tests are already there to allow releases to be created
on commits.
- This patch modifies the web code to take into account that an commitID
could've been passed as target.
- Added unit test.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1196
(cherry picked from commit 90863e0ab5)
(cherry picked from commit c805aa23b5)
(cherry picked from commit cf45567ca6)
(cherry picked from commit 672a2b91e5)
(cherry picked from commit 82c930152c)
(cherry picked from commit 95ac2508b3)
- Resolves#271
- Ensure that the adminstrator password is at least `MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH`.
(cherry picked from commit 28cb04c3f5)
(cherry picked from commit 95371ebd92)
(cherry picked from commit a134288ab6)
(cherry picked from commit 4202f052cb)
(cherry picked from commit 510b7467d3)
(cherry picked from commit f3a6e1f121)
(cherry picked from commit f340508819)
(cherry picked from commit b891bb176d)
(cherry picked from commit 1a1bfc38cc)
(cherry picked from commit 083d5aefed)
(cherry picked from commit 4586096be9)
This field adds the possibility to set the update date when modifying
an issue through the API.
A 'NoAutoDate' in-memory field is added in the Issue struct.
If the update_at field is set, NoAutoDate is set to true and the
Issue's UpdatedUnix field is filled.
That information is passed down to the functions that actually updates
the database, which have been modified to not auto update dates if
requested.
A guard is added to the 'EditIssue' API call, to checks that the
udpate_at date is between the issue's creation date and the current
date (to avoid 'malicious' changes). It also limits the new feature
to project's owners and admins.
(cherry picked from commit c524d33402)
Add a SetIssueUpdateDate() function in services/issue.go
That function is used by some API calls to set the NoAutoDate and
UpdatedUnix fields of an Issue if an updated_at date is provided.
(cherry picked from commit f061caa655)
Add an updated_at field to the API calls related to Issue's Labels.
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's labels.
(cherry picked from commit ea36cf80f5)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's content, and is set as the
asset creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 96150971ca)
Checking Issue changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPIEditIssueWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 4926a5d7a2)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment creation
The update date is used as the comment creation date, and is applied to
the issue as the update creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 76c8faecdc)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment edition
The update date is used as the comment update date, and is applied to
the issue as an update date.
(cherry picked from commit cf787ad7fd)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for comment's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the comment, and is set as the asset
creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 1e4ff424d3)
Checking Comment changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPICreateCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit da932152f1)
Pettier code to set the update time of comments
Now uses sess.AllCols().NoAutoToime().SetExpr("updated_unix", ...)
XORM is smart enough to compose one single SQL UPDATE which all
columns + updated_unix.
(cherry picked from commit 1f6a42808d)
Issue edition: Keep the max of the milestone and issue update dates.
When editing an issue via the API, an updated_at date can be provided.
If the EditIssue call changes the issue's milestone, the milestone's
update date is to be changed accordingly, but only with a greater
value.
This ensures that a milestone's update date is the max of all issue's
update dates.
(cherry picked from commit 8f22ea182e)
Rewrite the 'AutoDate' tests using subtests
Also add a test to check the permissions to set a date, and a test
to check update dates on milestones.
The tests related to 'AutoDate' are:
- TestAPIEditIssueAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueMilestoneAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 961fd13c55)
(cherry picked from commit d52f4eea44)
(cherry picked from commit 3540ea2a43)
Conflicts:
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1415
(cherry picked from commit 20b5669269)
(cherry picked from commit 1574643a6a)
Update semantic version according to specification
(cherry picked from commit 22510f4130)
Mise à jour de 'Makefile'
(cherry picked from commit c3d85d8409)
(cherry picked from commit 5ea2309851)
(cherry picked from commit ec5217b9d1)
(cherry picked from commit 14f08e364b)
(cherry picked from commit b4465c67b8)
[API] [SEMVER] replace number with version
(cherry picked from commit fba48e6497)
(cherry picked from commit 532ec5d878)
[API] [SEMVER] [v1.20] less is replaced by css
(cherry picked from commit 01ca3a4f42)
(cherry picked from commit 1d928c3ab2)
(cherry picked from commit a39dc804cd)
Conflicts:
webpack.config.js
(cherry picked from commit adc68578b3)
(cherry picked from commit 9b8d98475f)
(cherry picked from commit 2516103974)
(cherry picked from commit 18e6287963)
(cherry picked from commit e9694e67ab)
(cherry picked from commit a9763edaf0)
(cherry picked from commit e2b550f4fb)
(cherry picked from commit 2edac36701)
[API] Forgejo API /api/forgejo/v1 (squash)
Update semver as v1.20 is entering release candidate mode
(cherry picked from commit 4995098ec3)
(cherry picked from commit 578ccfdd27)
(cherry picked from commit 1bf6ac0952)
(cherry picked from commit 2fe16b2bfe)
(cherry picked from commit 7cd9d027ee)
(cherry picked from commit eaed4be2ae)
(cherry picked from commit cc94f3115f)
(cherry picked from commit d7a77e35cc)
(cherry picked from commit cd8eb68ab7)
(cherry picked from commit 68487ac95f)
(cherry picked from commit 616dceb565)
(cherry picked from commit 545fe5975b)
(cherry picked from commit c042cf8eda)
Unfortunately, when a system setting hasn't been stored in the database,
it cannot be cached.
Meanwhile, this PR also uses context cache for push email avatar display
which should avoid to read user table via email address again and again.
According to my local test, this should reduce dashboard elapsed time
from 150ms -> 80ms .
This feature was removed by #22219 to avoid possible CSRF attack.
This PR takes reverseproxy auth for API back but with default disabled.
To prevent possbile CSRF attack, the responsibility will be the
reverseproxy but not Gitea itself.
For those want to enable this `ENABLE_REVERSE_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION_API`,
they should know what they are doing.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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.
- Add routes for creating or updating a user's actions secrets in
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/user/action.go` with functions for
creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
- Modify the `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl` file to include the routes
for creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
## Changes
- Forces flashed error to render immediately when forgot password code
is incorrect or has expired.
- Adds a link back to the `forgot_password` page so that the user can
restart the process (in the event that their link has expired)
Fixes#24944
Since a user with write permissions for issues can add attachments to an
issue via the the web interface, the user should also be able to add
attachments via the API
- Modify the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function in `api.go` to include a
`Delete` operation for the secret
- Modify the `DeleteOrgSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the organization
- Modify the `DeleteSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the repository
- Modify the `v1_json.tmpl` template file to update the `operationId`
and `summary` for the `deleteSecret` operation in both the organization
and repository sections
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
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
You can currently visit `{repo}/issues/new` and create a blank issue,
even if it's disabled. This PR fixes this,
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1356
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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>
> ### Description
> If a new branch is pushed, and the repository has a rule that would
require signed commits for the new branch, the commit is rejected with a
500 error regardless of whether it's signed.
>
> When pushing a new branch, the "old" commit is the empty ID
(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000). verifyCommits has no
provision for this and passes an invalid commit range to git rev-list.
Prior to 1.19 this wasn't an issue because only pre-existing individual
branches could be protected.
>
> I was able to reproduce with
[try.gitea.io/CraigTest/test](https://try.gitea.io/CraigTest/test),
which is set up with a blanket rule to require commits on all branches.
Fix#25565
Very thanks to @Craig-Holmquist-NTI for reporting the bug and suggesting
an valid solution!
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-a-repository-secret
- Add a new route for creating or updating a secret value in a
repository
- Create a new file `routers/api/v1/repo/action.go` with the
implementation of the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function
- Update the Swagger documentation for the `updateRepoSecret` operation
in the `v1_json.tmpl` template file
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Cargo registry-auth feature requires config.json to have a property
auth-required set to true in order to send token to all registry
requests.
This is ok for git index because you can manually edit the config.json
file to add the auth-required, but when using sparse
(setting index url to
"sparse+https://git.example.com/api/packages/{owner}/cargo/"), the
config.json is dynamically rendered, and does not reflect changes to the
config.json file in the repo.
I see two approaches:
- Serve the real config.json file when fetching the config.json on the
cargo service.
- Automatically detect if the registry requires authorization. (This is
what I implemented in this PR).
What the PR does:
- When a cargo index repository is created, on the config.json, set
auth-required to wether or not the repository is private.
- When the cargo/config.json endpoint is called, set auth-required to
wether or not the request was authorized using an API token.
According to the GitHub API Spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-an-organization-secret
Merge the Create and Update secret into a single API.
- Remove the `CreateSecretOption` struct and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateSecretOption` in `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Update the `CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` to use `CreateOrUpdateSecretOption`
instead of `UpdateSecretOption`
- Remove the `CreateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret`
- Update the Swagger documentation in
`routers/api/v1/swagger/options.go` and `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl`
to reflect the changes in the struct names and function names
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
The web context (modules/context.Context) is quite complex, it's
difficult for the callers to initialize correctly.
This PR introduces a `NewWebContext` function, to make sure the web
context have the same behavior for different cases.
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?
