Part of #24256.
Clear up old action logs to free up storage space.
Users will see a message indicating that the log has been cleared if
they view old tasks.
<img width="1361" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9f0f3a3a-bc5a-402f-90ca-49282d196c22">
Docs: https://gitea.com/gitea/docs/pulls/40
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
(cherry picked from commit 687c1182482ad9443a5911c068b317a91c91d586)
Conflicts:
custom/conf/app.example.ini
routers/web/repo/actions/view.go
trivial context conflict
Fixes#22722
Currently, it is not possible to force push to a branch with branch
protection rules in place. There are often times where this is necessary
(CI workflows/administrative tasks etc).
The current workaround is to rename/remove the branch protection,
perform the force push, and then reinstate the protections.
Provide an additional section in the branch protection rules to allow
users to specify which users with push access can also force push to the
branch. The default value of the rule will be set to `Disabled`, and the
UI is intuitive and very similar to the `Push` section.
It is worth noting in this implementation that allowing force push does
not override regular push access, and both will need to be enabled for a
user to force push.
This applies to manual force push to a remote, and also in Gitea UI
updating a PR by rebase (which requires force push)
This modifies the `BranchProtection` API structs to add:
- `enable_force_push bool`
- `enable_force_push_whitelist bool`
- `force_push_whitelist_usernames string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_teams string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_deploy_keys bool`
<img width="943" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/7491899c-d816-45d5-be84-8512abd156bf">
branch `test` being a protected branch:
<img width="1038" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/57ead13e-9006-459f-b83c-7079e6f4c654">
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 12cb1d2998f2a307713ce979f8d585711e92061c)
- Go's deadcode eliminator is quite simple, if you put a public function
in a package `aa/bb` that is used only by tests, it would still be built
if package `aa/bb` was imported. This means that if such functions use
libraries relevant only to tests that those libraries would still be
be built and increase the binary size of a Go binary.
- This is also the case with Forgejo, `models/migrations/base/tests.go`
contained functions exclusively used by tests which (skipping some steps
here) imports https://github.com/ClickHouse/clickhouse-go, which is
2MiB. The `code.gitea.io/gitea/models/migrations/base` package is
imported by `cmd/doctor` and thus the code of the clickhouse library is
also built and included in the Forgejo binary, although entirely unused
and not reachable.
- This patch moves the test-related functions to their own package, so
Go's deadcode eliminator knows not to build the test-related functions
and thus reduces the size of the Forgejo binary.
- It is not possible to move this to a `_test.go` file because Go does
not allow importing functions from such files, so any test helper
function must be in a non-test package and file.
- Reduction of size (built with `TAGS="sqlite sqlite_unlock_notify" make
build`):
- Before: 95912040 bytes (92M)
- After: 92306888 bytes (89M)
fixes#22907
Tested:
- [x] issue content edit
- [x] issue content change tasklist
- [x] pull request content edit
- [x] pull request change tasklist
(cherry picked from commit aa92b13164e84c26be91153b6022220ce0a27720)
Conflicts:
models/issues/comment.go
c7a389f2b2 [FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
trivial context conflicts
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
services/issue/comments.go
services/issue/content.go
user blocking is implemented differently in Forgejo
routers/web/repo/issue.go
trivial difference from 6a0750177f Allow to save empty comment
user blocking is implemented differently in Forgejo
templates/repo/issue/view_content/conversation.tmpl
templates changed a lot in Forgejo but the change is
trivially ported
tests/integration/issue_test.go
other tests were added in the same region
web_src/js/features/repo-issue-edit.js
the code is still web_src/js/features/repo-legacy.js
trivially ported
This PR split the `Board` into two parts. One is the struct has been
renamed to `Column` and the second we have a `Template Type`.
But to make it easier to review, this PR will not change the database
schemas, they are just renames. The database schema changes could be in
future PRs.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
(cherry picked from commit 98751108b11dc748cc99230ca0fc1acfdf2c8929)
Conflicts:
docs/content/administration/config-cheat-sheet.en-us.md
docs/content/index.en-us.md
docs/content/installation/comparison.en-us.md
docs/content/usage/permissions.en-us.md
non existent files
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
routers/web/web.go
templates/repo/header.tmpl
templates/repo/settings/options.tmpl
trivial context conflicts
Fix#30872
We will assume the database is consistent before executing the
migration. So the indexes should exist. Removing `IF EXIST` then is safe
enough.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
(cherry picked from commit 40de54ece82356b161cdb9cc224ed9004af8ae5d)
Conflicts:
models/migrations/v1_22/v286.go
MSSQL is not supported in Forgejo
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>
Ref: Propose to restart 1.22 release #30501
(cherry picked from commit 6d2a307ad8af7d686f1c3a3706ff0f2df895658a)
Conflicts:
models/migrations/migrations.go
models/migrations/v1_22/v297.go
trivial conflict because a migration does not exist in Forgejo
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/23894#discussion_r1573718690
(cherry picked from commit 2ad9ef4984f0b68ef38241fd6b557d8427d851d8)
Conflicts:
models/migrations/v1_16/v210.go
models/migrations/v1_22/v286.go
trivial conflicts because MSSQL is no longer supported
Replace #6312
Help #5833
Wiki solution for #639
(cherry picked from commit 3feba9f1f44156c256a30d25ad1c25f751819c94)
Conflicts:
Trash everything, just keep the migration placeholder to ensure the Gitea
sequence is preserved. The Wiki edition is implemented differently.
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
The target_url is necessary for the UI, but missed in
commit_status_summary table. This PR fix it.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This PR adds a new table named commit status summary to reduce queries
from the commit status table. After this change, commit status summary
table will be used for the final result, commit status table will be for
details.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
- It was only used to parse old U2F data to webauthn credentials. We
only used the public key and keyhandle. This functiontionality was
reworked to `parseU2FRegistration`.
- Tests are already present, `Test_RemigrateU2FCredentials`.
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/29874#discussion_r1542227686
- The migration of v292 will miss many projects. These projects will
have no default board. This PR introduced a new migration number and
removed v292 migration.
- This PR also added the missed transactions on project-related
operations.
- Only `SetDefaultBoard` will remove duplicated defaults but not in
`GetDefaultBoard`
(cherry picked from commit 40cdc84b368cce8328b4b49ea5ecf1c5fa040300)
On creation of an empty project (no template) a default board will be
created instead of falling back to the uneditable pseudo-board.
Every project now has to have exactly one default boards. As a
consequence, you cannot unset a board as default, instead you have to
set another board as default. Existing projects will be modified using a
cron job, additionally this check will run every midnight by default.
Deleting the default board is not allowed, you have to set another board
as default to do it.
Fixes#29873Fixes#14679 along the way
Fixes#29853
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
(cherry picked from commit e5160185ed65fd1c2bcb2fc7dc7e0b5514ddb299)
Conflicts:
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
trivial conflict because Forgejo strings do not have
surrounding double quotes
Because the `git` module did not recognize SSH signed tags, those
signatures ended up in the `notes` column of the `release` table. While
future signatures will not end up there, Forgejo should clean up the old
ones.
This migration does just that: finds all releases that have an SSH
signature, and removes those signatures, preserving the rest of the
note (if any).
While this may seem like an expensive operation, it's only done once,
and even on the largest known Forgejo instance as of this
writing (Codeberg), the number of affected rows are just over a hundred,
a tiny amount all things considered.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen
only in one place.
---
1. An event happens
2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is
added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook
type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request
This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3.
This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain.
Updated webhook flow with this PR:
1. An event happens
2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the
webhook type) to make an HTTP request
So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3)
which should be much more robust.
- the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the
pre-processed body was stored)
- to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a
`payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been
pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event)
So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an
http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in
multiple places, like currently).
Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task
queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for
instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook.
As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be
substantially smaller:
- no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go`
- minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook
to the map)
- no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this
refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
(cherry picked from commit 26653b196bd1d15c532af41f60351596dd4330bd)
Conflicts:
services/webhook/deliver_test.go
trivial context conflict
Fix#29000Fix#28685Fix#18568
Related: #27497
And by the way fix#24036, add a Cancel button there (one line)
(cherry picked from commit 5cddab4f74bbb307ddf13e458c7ac22f93b9283a)
The tests on migration tests failed but CI reports successfully
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/actions/runs/7364373807/job/20044685969#step:8:141
This PR will fix the bug on migration v283 and also the CI hidden
behaviour.
The reason is on the Makefile
`GITEA_ROOT="$(CURDIR)" GITEA_CONF=tests/mysql.ini $(GO) test
$(GOTESTFLAGS) -tags='$(TEST_TAGS)' $(MIGRATE_TEST_PACKAGES)` will
return the error exit code.
But
`for pkg in $(shell $(GO) list
code.gitea.io/gitea/models/migrations/...); do \
GITEA_ROOT="$(CURDIR)" GITEA_CONF=tests/mysql.ini $(GO) test
$(GOTESTFLAGS) -tags '$(TEST_TAGS)' $$pkg; \
done`
will not work.
This also fix#29602
(cherry picked from commit 45277486c2c6213b7766b1da708a991cdb1f3565)
Conflicts:
.github/workflows/pull-db-tests.yml
Makefile
models/migrations/v1_22/v283.go
models/migrations/v1_22/v286_test.go
models/migrations/v1_22/v287_test.go
already in Forgejo for the Makefile & CI logic but Gitea changes
otherwise rule
This adds a new `doctor` check: `fix-push-mirrors-without-git-remote`. The new check looks for push mirrors that do not have their remotes configured in git. If automatic fixing is enabled, it will remove these push mirrors from the database.
The check is not run by default, and thus, must be invoked manually. It should be usable in a half-migrated state, too, and as such, fixes#1800.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1853
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Co-committed-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 9038e07ef3)
(cherry picked from commit b15bafcbc7)
(cherry picked from commit 93ba05a2dd)
(cherry picked from commit e418ea8082)
(cherry picked from commit 321790a91e)
(cherry picked from commit f4e19d3323)
(cherry picked from commit 4d9923dee8)
(cherry picked from commit 049df69eda)
Conflicts:
services/doctor/push_mirror_consistency.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2214
(cherry picked from commit c79cba8d55)
(cherry picked from commit f3a3969c02)
- Implements https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/32#issuecomment-918737
- Allows to add Forgejo-specific migrations that don't interfere with Gitea's migration logic. Please do note that we cannot liberally add migrations for Gitea tables, as they might do their own migrations in a future version on that table, and that could undo our migrations. Luckily, we don't have a scenario where that's needed and thus not taken into account.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/795
(cherry picked from commit 8ee32978c0)
(cherry picked from commit c240b34f59)
(cherry picked from commit 03936c6492)
(cherry picked from commit a20ed852f8)
(cherry picked from commit 1dfa82676f)
(cherry picked from commit c39ae0bf8a)
(cherry picked from commit cfaff08996)
(cherry picked from commit 94a458835a)
(cherry picked from commit 61a3cf77df)
(cherry picked from commit abb350fde8)
(cherry picked from commit 5194829d6b)
(cherry picked from commit 89239a60f2)
(cherry picked from commit 683cfd86ef)
(cherry picked from commit f4546cfed9)
(cherry picked from commit 86614d5826)
(cherry picked from commit e4b9c32187)
(cherry picked from commit 8c253719af)
(cherry picked from commit 857365d6c1)
(cherry picked from commit a488b3952f)
(cherry picked from commit 98313c4910)
(cherry picked from commit 430d95e824)
(cherry picked from commit 08bf9d918f)
(cherry picked from commit f8a170e2d0)
(cherry picked from commit d20e325378)
(cherry picked from commit 6c0aa7dd4f)
(cherry picked from commit 46c08c26c7)
(cherry picked from commit 9ee22153c4)
[DB] Ensure forgejo migration up to date (squash)
- Hook Forgejo's `EnsureUpToDate` to Gitea's `EnsureUpToDate`, such that
the Forgejo migrations are also being checked to be up to date.
- I'm not sure how I missed this and if this has caused any problems,
but due to the lack of any open issue about it it seems to not be a big
problem.
(cherry picked from commit 6c65b6dcf6)
(cherry picked from commit 6d45c37d84)
[DB] Add test for TestEnsureUpToDate (squash)
- Add a test for the behavior of `EnsureUpToDate`, to ensure it will
error when needed and succeed when the forgejo version is up to date.
- Add forgejo_migrations package to GO_TEST_PACKAGES, to avoid running
it with `test-unit` and instead test it with `test-*-migration`.
(cherry picked from commit b172a50691)
(cherry picked from commit d8af308820)
(cherry picked from commit e69e64a32c)
(cherry picked from commit 4e8363fad4)
(cherry picked from commit fc9ecd6c53)
(cherry picked from commit e5c446e3dc)
(cherry picked from commit 7066a15655)
(cherry picked from commit 9183cdc835)
(cherry picked from commit 5f93039e0d)
Conflicts:
Makefile
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2245
(cherry picked from commit a039b3b0c9)
- This also means that if one of the test fails, it will actually
propagate to make and subsequently fail the test.
- Remove the 'delete duplicates issue users' code, I checked this
against my local development database (which contains quite bizarre
cases, even some that Forgejo does not like), my local instance database
and against Codeberg production and they all yielded no results to this
query, so I'm removing it thus resolving the error that the delete code
was not compatible with Mysql.
- Sync all tables that are requires by the migration in the test.
- Resolves#2206
(cherry picked from commit 8e02be7e89)
(cherry picked from commit 006f064416)
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>
