Fix#26685
If a commit status comes from Gitea Actions and the user cannot access
the repo's actions unit (the user does not have the permission or the
actions unit is disabled), a 404 page will occur after clicking the
"Details" link. We should hide the "Details" link in this case.
<img
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/15528715/68361714-b784-4bb5-baab-efde4221f466"
width="400px" />
Fixes#22722
### Problem
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.
### Solution
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`
### Updated Branch Protection UI:
<img width="943" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/7491899c-d816-45d5-be84-8512abd156bf">
### Pull Request `Update branch by Rebase` option enabled with source
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>
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>
This PR replaces the use of `max( id )`, and instead using ``max(
`index` )`` for determining the latest commit status. Building business
logic over an `auto_increment` primary key like `id` is risky and
there’re already plenty of discussions on the Internet.
There‘s no guarantee for `auto_increment` values to be monotonic,
especially upon failures or with a cluster. In the specific case, we met
the problem of commit statuses being outdated when using TiDB as the
database. As [being
documented](https://docs.pingcap.com/tidb/stable/auto-increment),
`auto_increment` values assigned to an `insert` statement will only be
monotonic on a per server (node) basis.
Closes#30074.
Unlike other async processing in the queue, we should sync branches to
the DB immediately when handling git hook calling. If it fails, users
can see the error message in the output of the git command.
It can avoid potential inconsistency issues, and help #29494.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Clarify when "string" should be used (and be escaped), and when
"template.HTML" should be used (no need to escape)
And help PRs like #29059 , to render the error messages correctly.
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>
Fix#28157
This PR fix the possible bugs about actions schedule.
## The Changes
- Move `UpdateRepositoryUnit` and `SetRepoDefaultBranch` from models to
service layer
- Remove schedules plan from database and cancel waiting & running
schedules tasks in this repository when actions unit has been disabled
or global disabled.
- Remove schedules plan from database and cancel waiting & running
schedules tasks in this repository when default branch changed.
The 4 functions are duplicated, especially as interface methods. I think
we just need to keep `MustID` the only one and remove other 3.
```
MustID(b []byte) ObjectID
MustIDFromString(s string) ObjectID
NewID(b []byte) (ObjectID, error)
NewIDFromString(s string) (ObjectID, error)
```
Introduced the new interfrace method `ComputeHash` which will replace
the interface `HasherInterface`. Now we don't need to keep two
interfaces.
Reintroduced `git.NewIDFromString` and `git.MustIDFromString`. The new
function will detect the hash length to decide which objectformat of it.
If it's 40, then it's SHA1. If it's 64, then it's SHA256. This will be
right if the commitID is a full one. So the parameter should be always a
full commit id.
@AdamMajer Please review.
- Remove `ObjectFormatID`
- Remove function `ObjectFormatFromID`.
- Use `Sha1ObjectFormat` directly but not a pointer because it's an
empty struct.
- Store `ObjectFormatName` in `repository` struct
Refactor Hash interfaces and centralize hash function. This will allow
easier introduction of different hash function later on.
This forms the "no-op" part of the SHA256 enablement patch.
Fix#28056
This PR will check whether the repo has zero branch when pushing a
branch. If that, it means this repository hasn't been synced.
The reason caused that is after user upgrade from v1.20 -> v1.21, he
just push branches without visit the repository user interface. Because
all repositories routers will check whether a branches sync is necessary
but push has not such check.
For every repository, it has two states, synced or not synced. If there
is zero branch for a repository, then it will be assumed as non-sync
state. Otherwise, it's synced state. So if we think it's synced, we just
need to update branch/insert new branch. Otherwise do a full sync. So
that, for every push, there will be almost no extra load added. It's
high performance than yours.
For the implementation, we in fact will try to update the branch first,
if updated success with affect records > 0, then all are done. Because
that means the branch has been in the database. If no record is
affected, that means the branch does not exist in database. So there are
two possibilities. One is this is a new branch, then we just need to
insert the record. Another is the branches haven't been synced, then we
need to sync all the branches into database.
The function `GetByBean` has an obvious defect that when the fields are
empty values, it will be ignored. Then users will get a wrong result
which is possibly used to make a security problem.
To avoid the possibility, this PR removed function `GetByBean` and all
references.
And some new generic functions have been introduced to be used.
The recommand usage like below.
```go
// if query an object according id
obj, err := db.GetByID[Object](ctx, id)
// query with other conditions
obj, err := db.Get[Object](ctx, builder.Eq{"a": a, "b":b})
```
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.
This PR removed `unittest.MainTest` the second parameter
`TestOptions.GiteaRoot`. Now it detects the root directory by current
working directory.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Related to #26239
This PR makes some fixes:
- do not show the prompt for mirror repos and repos with pull request
units disabled
- use `commit_time` instead of `updated_unix`, as `commit_time` is the
real time when the branch was pushed
In the original implementation, we can only get the first 30 records of
the commit status (the default paging size), if the commit status is
more than 30, it will lead to the bug #25990. I made the following two
changes.
- On the page, use the ` db.ListOptions{ListAll: true}` parameter
instead of `db.ListOptions{}`
- The `GetLatestCommitStatus` function makes a determination as to
whether or not a pager is being used.
fixed#25990
This PR
- Fix#26093. Replace `time.Time` with `timeutil.TimeStamp`
- Fix#26135. Add missing `xorm:"extends"` to `CountLFSMetaObject` for
LFS meta object query
- Add a unit test for LFS meta object garbage collection
Before:
After:
There's a bug in the recent logic, `CalcCommitStatus` will always return
the first item of `statuses` or error status, because `state` is defined
with default value which should be `CommitStatusSuccess`
Then
``` golang
if status.State.NoBetterThan(state) {
```
this `if` will always return false unless `status.State =
CommitStatusError` which makes no sense.
So `lastStatus` will always be `nil` or error status.
Then we will always return the first item of `statuses` here or only
return error status, and this is why in the first picture the commit
status is `Success` but not `Failure`.
af1ffbcd63/models/git/commit_status.go (L204-L211)
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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>
