See https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27718#issuecomment-1773743014
. Add a test to ensure its behavior.
Why this test uses `ProjectBoardID=0`? Because in `SearchOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means what it is. But in `IssueOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means there is no condition, and
`ProjectBoardID=db.NoConditionID` means the board ID = 0.
It's really confusing. Probably it's better to separate the db search
engine and the other issue search code. It's really two different
systems. As far as I can see, `IssueOptions` is not necessary for most
of the code, which has very simple issue search conditions.
- The label HTML contained a quote that wasn't being closed.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1651
(cherry picked from commit e2bc2c9a1fff482c49dbeb3a51e4e1c698bf506c)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
1. remove unused function `MoveIssueAcrossProjectBoards`
2. extract the project board condition into a function
3. use db.NoCondition instead of -1. (BTW, the usage of db.NoCondition
is too confusing. Is there any way to avoid that?)
4. remove the unnecessary comment since the ctx refactor is completed.
5. Change `b.ID != 0` to `b.ID > 0`. It's more intuitive but I think
they're the same since board ID can't be negative.
When `webhook.PROXY_URL` has been set, the old code will check if the
proxy host is in `ALLOWED_HOST_LIST` or reject requests through the
proxy. It requires users to add the proxy host to `ALLOWED_HOST_LIST`.
However, it actually allows all requests to any port on the host, when
the proxy host is probably an internal address.
But things may be even worse. `ALLOWED_HOST_LIST` doesn't really work
when requests are sent to the allowed proxy, and the proxy could forward
them to any hosts.
This PR fixes it by:
- If the proxy has been set, always allow connectioins to the host and
port.
- Check `ALLOWED_HOST_LIST` before forwarding.
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.
Fix #27541
The INI package has a quirk: by default, the keys are inherited.
When maintaining the keys, the newly added sub key should not be
affected by the parent key.
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/27097:
- `gitea` theme is renamed to `gitea-light`
- `arc-green` theme is renamed to `gitea-dark`
- `auto` theme is renamed to `gitea-auto`
I put both themes in separate CSS files, removing all colors from the
base CSS. Existing users will be migrated to the new theme names. The
dark theme recolor will follow in a separate PR.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
1. If there are existing custom themes with the names `gitea-light` or
`gitea-dark`, rename them before this upgrade and update the `theme`
column in the `user` table for each affected user.
2. The theme in `<html>` has moved from `class="theme-name"` to
`data-theme="name"`, existing customizations that depend on should be
updated.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This pull request is a minor code cleanup.
From the Go specification (https://go.dev/ref/spec#For_range):
> "1. For a nil slice, the number of iterations is 0."
> "3. If the map is nil, the number of iterations is 0."
`len` returns 0 if the slice or map is nil
(https://pkg.go.dev/builtin#len). Therefore, checking `len(v) > 0`
before a loop is unnecessary.
---
At the time of writing this pull request, there wasn't a lint rule that
catches these issues. The closest I could find is
https://staticcheck.dev/docs/checks/#S103
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
This PR reduces the complexity of the system setting system.
It only needs one line to introduce a new option, and the option can be
used anywhere out-of-box.
It is still high-performant (and more performant) because the config
values are cached in the config system.
With this PR we added the possibility to configure the Actions timeouts
values for killing tasks/jobs.
Particularly this enhancement is closely related to the `act_runner`
configuration reported below:
```
# The timeout for a job to be finished.
# Please note that the Gitea instance also has a timeout (3h by default) for the job.
# So the job could be stopped by the Gitea instance if it's timeout is shorter than this.
timeout: 3h
```
---
Setting the corresponding key in the INI configuration file, it is
possible to let jobs run for more than 3 hours.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Antognazza <francesco.antognazza@gmail.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.
Follow #23465 and #25624
This PR introduces the following improvements:
- We do not need to call `GetTags` to get tags because tags have been
loaded by `RepoAssignment`
ef90fdbd1d/modules/context/repo.go (L663-L668)
- Similarly, the number of tags and releases also have been loaded by
`RepoAssignment`, so the related code has been removed from the
handlers. The query condition of `GetReleaseCountByRepoID` in
`RepoAssignment` has been changed to include draft releases.
ef90fdbd1d/modules/context/repo.go (L538-L551)
- `releasesOrTags` function has been removed. The code for rendering
releases list and tags list moved to `Releases` and `TagList`
respectively.
- Modify the deleted branch orphan check to check for the new table
instead.
- Regression from 6e19484f4d
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1522
(cherry picked from commit c1d888686fe445e4edecb9d835c5b3893b574b75)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
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>
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>
- Refactor lfs request code
- The original code uses `performRequest` function to create the
request, uses a callback to modify the request, and then send the
request.
- Now it's replaced with `createRequest` that only creates request and
`performRequest` that only sends the request.
- Reuse `createRequest` and `performRequest` in `http_client.go` and
`transferadapter.go`
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Closes#26329
This PR adds the ability to ignore revisions specified in the
`.git-blame-ignore-revs` file in the root of the repository.
![grafik](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/1666336/9e91be0c-6e9c-431c-bbe9-5f80154251c8)
The banner is displayed in this case. I intentionally did not add a UI
way to bypass the ignore file (same behaviour as Github) but you can add
`?bypass-blame-ignore=true` to the url manually.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR adds a new field `RemoteAddress` to both mirror types which
contains the sanitized remote address for easier (database) access to
that information. Will be used in the audit PR if merged.
As described in the title.
Some points:
1. Why need those tests?
Because `buildIssueOverview` is not well tested, there are several
continuous bugs in the issue overview webpage.
2. Why in indexer_test.go?
It's hard to put those tests in `./modules/indexer/issue/db/db_test.go`
because those tests need 'real' data in db mocked by fixtures instead of
random data in `./modules/indexer/issue/internal/tests`. When using
'real' data(`unittest.PrepareTestDatabase`), `InitIssueIndexer` and the
package `init()` function of `indexer` are required to init indexer.
3. Why only db?
The other three indexer engines are well tested by random data and it's
okay to also test them with 'real' data in db mocked by fixtures. Any
follow-up PR is welcome.
4. Those tests are really basic, any more complicated tests are welcome.
5. I think it's also necessary to add tests in `TestAPISearchIssues`
in`api_test_issue.go` and `TestIssues` in `home_test.go`
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>
Since the issue indexer has been refactored, the issue overview webpage
is built by the `buildIssueOverview` function and underlying
`indexer.Search` function and `GetIssueStats` instead of
`GetUserIssueStats`. So the function is no longer used.
I moved the relevant tests to `indexer_test.go` and since the search
option changed from `IssueOptions` to `SearchOptions`, most of the tests
are useless now.
We need more tests about the db indexer because those tests are highly
connected with the issue overview webpage and now this page has several
bugs.
Any advice about those test cases is appreciated.
---------
Co-authored-by: CaiCandong <50507092+CaiCandong@users.noreply.github.com>