Follow #29522
Administrators should be able to set a user's email address even if the
email address is not in `EMAIL_DOMAIN_ALLOWLIST`
(cherry picked from commit 136dd99e86eea9c8bfe61b972a12b395655171e8)
Fix#27457
Administrators should be able to manually create any user even if the
user's email address is not in `EMAIL_DOMAIN_ALLOWLIST`.
(cherry picked from commit 4fd9c56ed09b31e2f6164a5f534a31c6624d0478)
just some refactoring bits towards replacing **util.OptionalBool** with
**optional.Option[bool]**
---------
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
(cherry picked from commit f6656181e4a07d6c415927220efa2077d509f7c6)
Conflicts:
models/repo/repo_list_test.go
trivial shared fixture count conflicts
During registration, one may be required to give their email address, to
be verified and activated later. However, if one makes a mistake, a
typo, they may end up with an account that cannot be activated due to
having a wrong email address.
They can still log in, but not change the email address, thus, no way to
activate it without help from an administrator.
To remedy this issue, lets allow changing the email address for logged
in, but not activated users.
This fixes gitea#17785.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit aaaece28e4)
(cherry picked from commit 639dafabec)
(cherry picked from commit d699c12ceb)
[GITEA] Allow changing the email address before activation (squash) cache is always active
This needs to be revisited because the MailResendLimit is not enforced
and turns out to not be tested.
See e7cb8da2a8 * Always enable caches (#28527)
(cherry picked from commit 43ded8ee30)
Rate limit pre-activation email change separately
Changing the email address before any email address is activated should
be subject to a different rate limit than the normal activation email
resending. If there's only one rate limit for both, then if a newly
signed up quickly discovers they gave a wrong email address, they'd have
to wait three minutes to change it.
With the two separate limits, they don't - but they'll have to wait
three minutes before they can change the email address again.
The downside of this setup is that a malicious actor can alternate
between resending and changing the email address (to something like
`user+$idx@domain`, delivered to the same inbox) to effectively halving
the rate limit. I do not think there's a better solution, and this feels
like such a small attack surface that I'd deem it acceptable.
The way the code works after this change is that `ActivatePost` will now
check the `MailChangeLimit_user` key rather than `MailResendLimit_user`,
and if we're within the limit, it will set `MailChangedJustNow_user`. The
`Activate` method - which sends the activation email, whether it is a
normal resend, or one following an email change - will check
`MailChangedJustNow_user`, and if it is set, it will check the rate
limit against `MailChangedLimit_user`, otherwise against
`MailResendLimit_user`, and then will delete the
`MailChangedJustNow_user` key from the cache.
Fixes#2040.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit e35d2af2e5)
(cherry picked from commit 03989418a7)
(cherry picked from commit f50e0dfe5e)
(cherry picked from commit cad9184a36)
(cherry picked from commit e2da5d7fe1)
(cherry picked from commit 3a80534d4d)
- Add a dropdown to the web interface for changing files to select which
Email should be used for the commit. It only shows (and verifies) that a
activated mail can be used, while this isn't necessary, it's better to
have this already in place.
- Added integration testing.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/281
(cherry picked from commit 564e701f40)
(cherry picked from commit de8f2e03cc)
(cherry picked from commit 0182cff12e)
(cherry picked from commit 9c74254d46)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b68f821)
(cherry picked from commit 079b995d49)
(cherry picked from commit 6952ea6ee3)
(cherry picked from commit 6c7d5a5d14)
(cherry picked from commit 49c39f0ed5)
(cherry picked from commit a8f9727388)
Fixes#28660
Fixes an admin api bug related to `user.LoginSource`
Fixed `/user/emails` response not identical to GitHub api
This PR unifies the user update methods. The goal is to keep the logic
only at one place (having audit logs in mind). For example, do the
password checks only in one method not everywhere a password is updated.
After that PR is merged, the user creation should be next.
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 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>
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Fix#19513
This PR introduce a new db method `InTransaction(context.Context)`,
and also builtin check on `db.TxContext` and `db.WithTx`.
There is also a new method `db.AutoTx` has been introduced but could be used by other PRs.
`WithTx` will always open a new transaction, if a transaction exist in context, return an error.
`AutoTx` will try to open a new transaction if no transaction exist in context.
That means it will always enter a transaction if there is no error.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
A lot of our code is repeatedly testing if individual errors are
specific types of Not Exist errors. This is repetitative and unnecesary.
`Unwrap() error` provides a common way of labelling an error as a
NotExist error and we can/should use this.
This PR has chosen to use the common `io/fs` errors e.g.
`fs.ErrNotExist` for our errors. This is in some ways not completely
correct as these are not filesystem errors but it seems like a
reasonable thing to do and would allow us to simplify a lot of our code
to `errors.Is(err, fs.ErrNotExist)` instead of
`package.IsErr...NotExist(err)`
I am open to suggestions to use a different base error - perhaps
`models/db.ErrNotExist` if that would be felt to be better.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
For security reasons, all e-mail addresses starting with
non-alphanumeric characters were rejected. This is too broad and rejects
perfectly valid e-mail addresses. Only leading hyphens should be
rejected -- in all other cases e-mail address specification should
follow RFC 5322.
Co-authored-by: Andreas Fischer <_@ndreas.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
