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)
(cherry picked from commit 2e43e49961)
(cherry picked from commit 3bfb6cc1c0)
(cherry picked from commit 38918d5f5c)
(cherry picked from commit 174f6ac345)
Backport #27829 by @jbgomond
Fixed a little mistake when you deleting user secrets via the API. Found
it when working on #27725.
It should be backported to 1.21 I think.
Co-authored-by: Jean-Baptiste Gomond <dev@jbgomond.com>
Backport #27265 by @JakobDev
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.
Co-authored-by: JakobDev <jakobdev@gmx.de>
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.
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>
Most middleware throw a 404 in case something is not found e.g. a Repo
that is not existing. But most API endpoints don't include the 404
response in their documentation. This PR changes this.
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>
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>
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
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>
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>
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?
- 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>
Fix#24662.
Replace #24822 and #25708 (although it has been merged)
## Background
In the past, Gitea supported issue searching with a keyword and
conditions in a less efficient way. It worked by searching for issues
with the keyword and obtaining limited IDs (as it is heavy to get all)
on the indexer (bleve/elasticsearch/meilisearch), and then querying with
conditions on the database to find a subset of the found IDs. This is
why the results could be incomplete.
To solve this issue, we need to store all fields that could be used as
conditions in the indexer and support both keyword and additional
conditions when searching with the indexer.
## Major changes
- Redefine `IndexerData` to include all fields that could be used as
filter conditions.
- Refactor `Search(ctx context.Context, kw string, repoIDs []int64,
limit, start int, state string)` to `Search(ctx context.Context, options
*SearchOptions)`, so it supports more conditions now.
- Change the data type stored in `issueIndexerQueue`. Use
`IndexerMetadata` instead of `IndexerData` in case the data has been
updated while it is in the queue. This also reduces the storage size of
the queue.
- Enhance searching with Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch, make them
fully support `SearchOptions`. Also, update the data versions.
- Keep most logic of database indexer, but remove
`issues.SearchIssueIDsByKeyword` in `models` to avoid confusion where is
the entry point to search issues.
- Start a Meilisearch instance to test it in unit tests.
- Add unit tests with almost full coverage to test
Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch indexer.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
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"` ``
