Backport https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28794Fixes#22236
---
Error occurring currently while trying to revert commit using read-tree
-m approach:
> 2022/12/26 16:04:43 ...rvices/pull/patch.go:240:AttemptThreeWayMerge()
[E] [63a9c61a] Unable to run read-tree -m! Error: exit status 128 -
fatal: this operation must be run in a work tree
> - fatal: this operation must be run in a work tree
We need to clone a non-bare repository for `git read-tree -m` to work.
bb371aee6e
adds support to create a non-bare cloned temporary upload repository.
After cloning a non-bare temporary upload repository, we [set default
index](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/services/repository/files/cherry_pick.go#L37)
(`git read-tree HEAD`).
This operation ends up resetting the git index file (see investigation
details below), due to which, we need to call `git update-index
--refresh` afterward.
Here's the diff of the index file before and after we execute
SetDefaultIndex: https://www.diffchecker.com/hyOP3eJy/
Notice the **ctime**, **mtime** are set to 0 after SetDefaultIndex.
You can reproduce the same behavior using these steps:
```bash
$ git clone https://try.gitea.io/me-heer/test.git -s -b main
$ cd test
$ git read-tree HEAD
$ git read-tree -m 1f085d7ed8 1f085d7ed8 9933caed00
error: Entry '1' not uptodate. Cannot merge.
```
After which, we can fix like this:
```bash
$ git update-index --refresh
$ git read-tree -m 1f085d7ed8 1f085d7ed8 9933caed00
```
Backport #28844 by @AdamMajer
Git 2.43.0 will not detect a git repository as valid without refs/
subdirectory present. `git gc` cleans this up and puts it in
packed-refs. We must keep refs/ non-empty.
Co-authored-by: Adam Majer <amajer@suse.de>
Backport #26745Fixes#26548
This PR refactors the rendering of markup links. The old code uses
`strings.Replace` to change some urls while the new code uses more
context to decide which link should be generated.
The added tests should ensure the same output for the old and new
behaviour (besides the bug).
We may need to refactor the rendering a bit more to make it clear how
the different helper methods render the input string. There are lots of
options (resolve links / images / mentions / git hashes / emojis / ...)
but you don't really know what helper uses which options. For example,
we currently support images in the user description which should not be
allowed I think:
<details>
<summary>Profile</summary>
https://try.gitea.io/KN4CK3R
![grafik](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/1666336/109ae422-496d-4200-b52e-b3a528f553e5)
</details>
Backport #28140 by @earl-warren
- Make use of the `form-fetch-action` for the merge button, which will
automatically prevent the action from happening multiple times and show
a nice loading indicator as user feedback while the merge request is
being processed by the server.
- Adjust the merge PR code to JSON response as this is required for the
`form-fetch-action` functionality.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/774
- Likely resolves the cause of
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1688#issuecomment-1313044
(cherry picked from commit 4ec64c19507caefff7ddaad722b1b5792b97cc5a)
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <109468362+earl-warren@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fix#28157
Backport #28691
This PR fix the possible bugs about actions schedule.
- 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.
Backport #28716 by wxiaoguang
Gitea prefers to use relative URLs in code (to make multiple domain work
for some users)
So it needs to use `toAbsoluteUrl` to generate a full URL when click
"Reference in New Issues"
And add some comments in the test code
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Backport #28719 by wxiaoguang
In #26851, it assumed that `Commit` always exists when
`PageIsDiff==true`.
But for a 404 page, the `Commit` doesn't exist, so the following code
would cause panic because nil value can't be passed as string parameter
to `IsMultilineCommitMessage(string)` (or the StringUtils.Cut in later
PRs)
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Backport #28590 by @lunny
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28547#issuecomment-1867740842
Since https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2383 merged, xorm now supports
UPDATE JOIN.
To keep consistent from different databases, xorm use
`engine.Join().Update`, but the actural generated SQL are different
between different databases.
For MySQL, it's `UPDATE talbe1 JOIN table2 ON join_conditions SET xxx
Where xxx`.
For MSSQL, it's `UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM TABLE1, TABLE2 WHERE
join_conditions`.
For SQLITE per https://www.sqlite.org/lang_update.html, sqlite support
`UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM table2 WHERE join conditions` from
3.33.0(2020-8-14).
POSTGRES is the same as SQLITE.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Replace #28625
Backport #28624 by lunny
#28361 introduced `syncBranchToDB` in `CreateNewBranchFromCommit`. This
PR will revert the change because it's unnecessary. Every push will
already be checked by `syncBranchToDB`.
This PR also created a test to ensure it's right.
Backport #28587, the only conflict is the test file.
The CORS code has been unmaintained for long time, and the behavior is
not correct.
This PR tries to improve it. The key point is written as comment in
code. And add more tests.
Fix#28515Fix#27642Fix#17098
Fix#28056
Backport #28361
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.
Backport #27610 by @evantobin
Fixes#27598
In #27080, the logic for the tokens endpoints were updated to allow
admins to create and view tokens in other accounts. However, the same
functionality was not added to the DELETE endpoint. This PR makes the
DELETE endpoint function the same as the other token endpoints and adds
unit tests
Co-authored-by: Evan Tobin <me@evantob.in>
Backport #28014 by @earl-warren
System users (Ghost, ActionsUser, etc) have a negative id and may be the
author of a comment, either because it was created by a now deleted user
or via an action using a transient token.
The GetPossibleUserByID function has special cases related to system
users and will not fail if given a negative id.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1425
(cherry picked from commit 6a2d2fa243)
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <109468362+earl-warren@users.noreply.github.com>
Backport #27915 by @KN4CK3R
Fixes#27819
We have support for two factor logins with the normal web login and with
basic auth. For basic auth the two factor check was implemented at three
different places and you need to know that this check is necessary. This
PR moves the check into the basic auth itself.
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Backport #27832 by @jbgomond
Adds the missing user secrets API integration tests so #27829 does not
happen again
Co-authored-by: Jean-Baptiste Gomond <dev@jbgomond.com>
Backport #27544 by @earl-warren
- Currently in the cron tasks, the 'Previous Time' only displays the
previous time of when the cron library executes the function, but not
any of the manual executions of the task.
- Store the last run's time in memory in the Task struct and use that,
when that time is later than time that the cron library has executed
this task.
- This ensures that if an instance admin manually starts a task, there's
feedback that this task is/has been run, because the task might be run
that quick, that the status icon already has been changed to an
checkmark,
- Tasks that are executed at startup now reflect this as well, as the
time of the execution of that task on startup is now being shown as
'Previous Time'.
- Added integration tests for the API part, which is easier to test
because querying the HTML table of cron tasks is non-trivial.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/949
(cherry picked from commit fd34fdac14)
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <109468362+earl-warren@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Backport #27384 by @rbhz
Add support for HEAD in paths:
```
/src/branch/HEAD/README.md
/src/commit/HEAD/README.md
```
Closes#26920
Co-authored-by: Kirill Sorokin <48334247+rbhz@users.noreply.github.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>
Backport #26521 by @JakobDev
Blank Issues should be enabled if they are not explicit disabled through
the `blank_issues_enabled` field of the Issue Config. The Implementation
has currently a Bug: If you create a Issue Config file with only
`contact_links` and without a `blank_issues_enabled` field,
`blank_issues_enabled` is set to false by default.
The fix is only one line, but I decided to also improve the tests to
make sure there are no other problems with the Implementation.
This is a bugfix, so it should be backported to 1.20.
Co-authored-by: JakobDev <jakobdev@gmx.de>
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>
Currently, Artifact does not have an expiration and automatic cleanup
mechanism, and this feature needs to be added. It contains the following
key points:
- [x] add global artifact retention days option in config file. Default
value is 90 days.
- [x] add cron task to clean up expired artifacts. It should run once a
day.
- [x] support custom retention period from `retention-days: 5` in
`upload-artifact@v3`.
- [x] artifacts link in actions view should be non-clickable text when
expired.
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.
1. The old `prepareQueryArg` did double-unescaping of form value.
2. By the way, remove the unnecessary `ctx.Flash = ...` in
`MockContext`.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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
This PR implements a proposal to clean up the admin users table by
moving some information out to a separate user details page (which also
displays some additional information).
Other changes:
- move edit user page from `/admin/users/{id}` to
`/admin/users/{id}/edit` -> `/admin/users/{id}` now shows the user
details page
- show if user is instance administrator as a label instead of a
separate column
- separate explore users template into a page- and a shared one, to make
it possible to use it on the user details page
- fix issue where there was no margin between alert message and
following content on admin pages
<details>
<summary>Screenshots</summary>
![grafik](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/47871822/1ad57ac9-f20a-45a4-8477-ffe572a41e9e)
![grafik](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/47871822/25786ecd-cb9d-4c92-90f4-e7f4292c073b)
</details>
Partially resolves#25939
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/580
- Return a `upload_field` to any release API response, which points to
the API URL for uploading new assets.
- Adds unit test.
- Adds integration testing to verify URL is returned correctly and that
upload endpoint actually works
---------
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
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?