Previously, the repo wiki was hardcoded to use `master` as its branch,
this change makes it possible to use `main` (or something else, governed
by `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`, a setting that already exists and
defaults to `main`).
The way it is done is that a new column is added to the `repository`
table: `wiki_branch`. The migration will make existing repositories
default to `master`, for compatibility's sake, even if they don't have a
Wiki (because it's easier to do that). Newly created repositories will
default to `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH` instead.
The Wiki service was updated to use the branch name stored in the
database, and fall back to the default if it is empty.
Old repositories with Wikis using the older `master` branch will have
the option to do a one-time transition to `main`, available via the
repository settings in the "Danger Zone". This option will only be
available for repositories that have the internal wiki enabled, it is
not empty, and the wiki branch is not `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`.
When migrating a repository with a Wiki, Forgejo will use the same
branch name for the wiki as the source repository did. If that's not the
same as the default, the option to normalize it will be available after
the migration's done.
Additionally, the `/api/v1/{owner}/{repo}` endpoint was updated: it will
now include the wiki branch name in `GET` requests, and allow changing
the wiki branch via `PATCH`.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit d87c526d2a)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
Expose the repository flags feature over the API, so the flags can be
managed by a site administrator without using the web API.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit bac9f0225d)
(cherry picked from commit e7f5c1ba14)
(cherry picked from commit 95d9fe19cf)
(cherry picked from commit 7fc51991e4)
do not reuse the payload of the event that triggered the creation of
the scheduled event. Create a new one instead that contains no other
information than the event name in the action field ("schedule").
(cherry picked from commit 0b40ca1ea5)
(cherry picked from commit f86487432b)
(cherry picked from commit 4bd5d2e9d0)
(cherry picked from commit d10830e238)
(cherry picked from commit 53f5a3aa91)
(cherry picked from commit 9ed1487b73)
(cherry picked from commit 6a39978851)
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 56720ade00)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_label.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1462
(cherry picked from commit 47c78927d6)
(cherry picked from commit 2030f3b965)
(cherry picked from commit f02aeb7698)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_attachment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1575
(cherry picked from commit d072525b35)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3d)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec7)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) apply the 'update_at' value to the cross-ref comments (#1676)
[this is a follow-up to PR #764]
When a comment of issue A referencing issue B is added with a forced 'updated_at' date, that date has to be applied to the comment created in issue B.
-----
Comment:
While trying my 'RoundUp migration script', I found that this case was forgotten in PR #764 - my apologies...
I'll try to write a functional test, base on models/issues/issue_xref_test.go
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1676
Co-authored-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
Co-committed-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
(cherry picked from commit ac4f727f63)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9)
(cherry picked from commit 77ba6be1da)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8337b5c4)
(cherry picked from commit 1d689eb686)
(cherry picked from commit 511c519c87)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b4a8f61)
(cherry picked from commit fdd4da111c)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) do not use token= query param
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/33439b733a
(cherry picked from commit c5139a75b9)
(cherry picked from commit c7b572c35d)
(cherry picked from commit aec7503ff6)
(cherry picked from commit 87c65f2a49)
(cherry picked from commit bd47ee33c2)
(cherry picked from commit f3dbd90a74)
Fixes#27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- Modify the `Password` field in `CreateUserOption` struct to remove the
`Required` tag
- Update the `v1_json.tmpl` template to include the `email` field and
remove the `password` field
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
I noticed, that the push mirrors endpoint, is the only endpoint which
returns the times in long format rather than as time.Time().
I think the behavior should be consistent across the project.
----
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
This PR changes the time format used in API responses for all
push_mirror endpoints which return a push mirror.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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>
- 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>
- Add a new `CreateSecretOption` struct for creating secrets
- Implement a `CreateOrgSecret` function to create a secret in an
organization
- Add a new route in `api.go` to handle the creation of organization
secrets
- Update the Swagger template to include the new `CreateOrgSecret` API
endpoint
---------
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new function `CountOrgSecrets` in the file
`models/secret/secret.go`
- Add a new file `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Add a new function `ListActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
- Add a new function `listActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
go-sdk: https://gitea.com/gitea/go-sdk/pulls/629
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Archived labels
This adds the structure to allow for archived labels.
Archived labels are, just like closed milestones or projects, a medium to hide information without deleting it.
It is especially useful if there are outdated labels that should no longer be used without deleting the label entirely.
## Changes
1. UI and API have been equipped with the support to mark a label as archived
2. The time when a label has been archived will be stored in the DB
## Outsourced for the future
There's no special handling for archived labels at the moment.
This will be done in the future.
## Screenshots
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25237
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
- The `NoBetterThan` function can only handle comparisons between
"pending," "success," "error," and "failure." For any other comparison,
we directly return false. This prevents logic errors like the one in
#26121.
- The callers of the `NoBetterThan` function should also avoid making
incomparable calls.
---------
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: puni9869 <80308335+puni9869@users.noreply.github.com>
Fix#25776. Close#25826.
In the discussion of #25776, @wolfogre's suggestion was to remove the
commit status of `running` and `warning` to keep it consistent with
github.
references:
-
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVersion=2022-11-28#about-commit-statuses
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
So the commit status of Gitea will be consistent with GitHub, only
`pending`, `success`, `error` and `failure`, while `warning` and
`running` are not supported anymore.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Before: the concept "Content string" is used everywhere. It has some
problems:
1. Sometimes it means "base64 encoded content", sometimes it means "raw
binary content"
2. It doesn't work with large files, eg: uploading a 1G LFS file would
make Gitea process OOM
This PR does the refactoring: use "ContentReader" / "ContentBase64"
instead of "Content"
This PR is not breaking because the key in API JSON is still "content":
`` ContentBase64 string `json:"content"` ``
This adds an API for uploading and Deleting Avatars for of Users, Repos
and Organisations. I'm not sure, if this should also be added to the
Admin API.
Resolves#25344
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fixes some issues with the swagger documentation for the new multiple
files API endpoint (#24887) which were overlooked when submitting the
original PR:
1. add some missing parameter descriptions
2. set correct `required` option for required parameters
3. change endpoint description to match it full functionality (every
kind of file modification is supported, not just creating and updating)
This PR creates an API endpoint for creating/updating/deleting multiple
files in one API call similar to the solution provided by
[GitLab](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/commits.html#create-a-commit-with-multiple-files-and-actions).
To archive this, the CreateOrUpdateRepoFile and DeleteRepoFIle functions
in files service are unified into one function supporting multiple files
and actions.
Resolves#14619
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves#2175.
## Screenshots
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/16321
Provided a webhook trigger for requesting someone to review the Pull
Request.
Some modifications have been made to the returned `PullRequestPayload`
based on the GitHub webhook settings, including:
- add a description of the current reviewer object as
`RequestedReviewer` .
- setting the action to either **review_requested** or
**review_request_removed** based on the operation.
- adding the `RequestedReviewers` field to the issues_model.PullRequest.
This field will be loaded into the PullRequest through
`LoadRequestedReviewers()` when `ToAPIPullRequest` is called.
After the Pull Request is merged, I will supplement the relevant
documentation.
#### Added
- API: Create a branch directly from commit on the create branch API
- Added `old_ref_name` parameter to allow creating a new branch from a
specific commit, tag, or branch.
- Deprecated `old_branch_name` parameter in favor of the new
`old_ref_name` parameter.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This adds a API for getting License templates. This tries to be as close
to the [GitHub
API](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/licenses?apiVersion=2022-11-28) as
possible, but Gitea does not support all features that GitHub has. I
think they should been added, but this out f the scope of this PR. You
should merge #23006 before this PR for security reasons.
Closes#20955
This PR adds the possibility to disable blank Issues, when the Repo has
templates. This can be done by creating the file
`.gitea/issue_config.yaml` with the content `blank_issues_enabled` in
the Repo.
Adds API endpoints to manage issue/PR dependencies
* `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` List issues that are
blocked by this issue
* `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` Block the issue
given in the body by the issue in path
* `DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` Unblock the issue
given in the body by the issue in path
* `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` List an
issue's dependencies
* `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` Create a new
issue dependencies
* `DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` Remove an
issue dependency
Closes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/15393Closes#22115
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Remove `[repository.editor] PREVIEWABLE_FILE_MODES` setting that seemed
like it was intended to support this but did not work. Instead, whenever
viewing a file shows a preview, also have a Preview tab in the file
editor.
Add new `/markup` web and API endpoints with `comment`, `gfm`,
`markdown` and new `file` mode that uses a file path to determine the
renderer.
Remove `/markdown` web endpoint but keep the API for backwards and
GitHub compatibility.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
The `[repository.editor] PREVIEWABLE_FILE_MODES` setting was removed.
This setting served no practical purpose and was not working correctly.
Instead a preview tab is always shown in the file editor when supported.
---------
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
this is a simple endpoint that adds the ability to rename users to the
admin API.
Note: this is not in a mergeable state. It would be better if this was
handled by a PATCH/POST to the /api/v1/admin/users/{username} endpoint
and the username is modified.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
