When a new commit is pushed to an existing pull request, the update of
the commit status will happen asynchronously, via the git hook.
--- FAIL: TestPullRequestCommitStatus/synchronize (2.14s)
actions_trigger_test.go:331:
Error Trace: /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/actions_trigger_test.go:331
Error: Should be true
Test: TestPullRequestCommitStatus/synchronize
When ReplaceIssueLabels calls issue.LoadLabels it was a noop because
issue.isLabelsLoaded is still set to true because of the call to
issue.LoadLabels that was done at the beginning of the function.
When a workflow has
on:
pull_request:
types:
- labeled
- unlabeled
The outcome of the workflow (success or failure) must be associated
with the head sha commit status. Otherwise it cannot be used as a
requirement for merging the pull request (branch protections).
- This allows `CreateDeclarativeRepo` to be used by other testing
packages such as E2EE testing.
- Removes unused function in `services/webhook/sourcehut/builds_test.go`.
ForkRepository performs two different functions:
* The fork itself, if it does not already exist
* Updates and notifications after the fork is performed
The function is split to reflect that and otherwise unmodified.
The two function are given different names to:
* clarify which integration tests provides coverage
* distinguish it from the notification method by the same name
Closes#2797
I'm aware of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28163 exists, but since I had it laying around on my drive and collecting dust, I might as well open a PR for it if anyone wants the feature a bit sooner than waiting for upstream to release it or to be a forgejo "native" implementation.
This PR Contains:
- Support for the `workflow_dispatch` trigger
- Inputs: boolean, string, number, choice
Things still to be done:
- [x] API Endpoint `/api/v1/<org>/<repo>/actions/workflows/<workflow id>/dispatches`
- ~~Fixing some UI bugs I had no time figuring out, like why dropdown/choice inputs's menu's behave weirdly~~ Unrelated visual bug with dropdowns inside dropdowns
- [x] Fix bug where opening the branch selection submits the form
- [x] Limit on inputs to render/process
Things not in this PR:
- Inputs: environment (First need support for environments in forgejo)
Things needed to test this:
- A patch for https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner to actually consider the inputs inside the workflow.
~~One possible patch can be seen here: https://code.forgejo.org/Mai-Lapyst/runner/src/branch/support-workflow-inputs~~
[PR](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/199)
## Testing
- Checkout PR
- Setup new development runner with [this PR](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/199)
- Create a repo with a workflow (see below)
- Go to the actions tab, select the workflow and see the notice as in the screenshot above
- Use the button + dropdown to run the workflow
- Try also running it via the api using the `` endpoint
- ...
- Profit!
<details>
<summary>Example workflow</summary>
```yaml
on:
workflow_dispatch:
inputs:
logLevel:
description: 'Log Level'
required: true
default: 'warning'
type: choice
options:
- info
- warning
- debug
tags:
description: 'Test scenario tags'
required: false
type: boolean
boolean_default_true:
description: 'Test scenario tags'
required: true
type: boolean
default: true
boolean_default_false:
description: 'Test scenario tags'
required: false
type: boolean
default: false
number1_default:
description: 'Number w. default'
default: '100'
type: number
number2:
description: 'Number w/o. default'
type: number
string1_default:
description: 'String w. default'
default: 'Hello world'
type: string
string2:
description: 'String w/o. default'
required: true
type: string
jobs:
test:
runs-on: docker
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: whoami
- run: cat /etc/issue
- run: uname -a
- run: date
- run: echo ${{ inputs.logLevel }}
- run: echo ${{ inputs.tags }}
- env:
GITHUB_CONTEXT: ${{ toJson(github) }}
run: echo "$GITHUB_CONTEXT"
- run: echo "abc"
```
</details>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3334
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mai-Lapyst <mai-lapyst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Mai-Lapyst <mai-lapyst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Fix#29731
Caused by #24634
Also remove fixme.
ps: we can not fix the existed runs, as wrong refs are all recorded in
DB, and we can not know whether they are branch or tag:
(cherry picked from commit 98217b034076157547cf688cc10f47cd3275c872)
Conflicts:
tests/integration/actions_trigger_test.go
there is a need for more imports because the exist tests
are done differently, using CreateDeclarativeRepo
Skip a HookEventPullRequestSync event if it has the same CommitSHA as an existing HookEventPullRequest event in the ActionRun table. A HookEventPullRequestSync event must only create an ActionRun if the CommitSHA is different from what it was when the PR was open.
This guards against a race that can happen when the following is done in parallel:
* A commit C is pushed to a repo on branch B
* A pull request with head on branch B
it is then possible that the pull request is created first, successfully. The commit that was just pushed is not known yet but the PR only references the repository and the B branch so it is fine.
A HookEventPullRequest event is sent to the notification queue but not processed immediately.
The commit C is pushed and processed successfully. Since the PR already exists and has a head that matches the branch, the head of the PR is updated with the commit C and a HookEventPullRequestSync event is sent to the notification queue.
The HookEventPullRequest event is processed and since the head of the PR was updated to be commit C, an ActionRun with CommitSHA C is created.
The HookEventPullRequestSync event is then processed and also has a CommitSHA equal to C.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2314
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
These tests originate from Gitea, so may cause conflicts in the longer
run. But they use the same pattern, so transitioning them to the helper
is hopefully a benefit that offsets the risk.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 2d475af494)
(cherry picked from commit a99c17729c)
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.
Follow #25229
Copy from
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/26290#issuecomment-1663135186
The bug is that we cannot get changed files for the
`pull_request_target` event. This event runs in the context of the base
branch, so we won't get any changes if we call
`GetFilesChangedSinceCommit` with `PullRequest.Base.Ref`.
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"` ``
Follow #25229
At present, when the trigger event is `pull_request_target`, the `ref`
and `sha` of `ActionRun` are set according to the base branch of the
pull request. This makes it impossible for us to find the head branch of
the `ActionRun` directly. In this PR, the `ref` and `sha` will always be
set to the head branch and they will be changed to the base branch when
generating the task context.
Fix#25088
This PR adds the support for
[`pull_request_target`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target)
workflow trigger. `pull_request_target` is similar to `pull_request`,
but the workflow triggered by the `pull_request_target` event runs in
the context of the base branch of the pull request rather than the head
branch. Since the workflow from the base is considered trusted, it can
access the secrets and doesn't need approvals to run.
