The previous commit laid out the foundation of the quota engine, this
one builds on top of it, and implements the actual enforcement.
Enforcement happens at the route decoration level, whenever possible. In
case of the API, when over quota, a 413 error is returned, with an
appropriate JSON payload. In case of web routes, a 413 HTML page is
rendered with similar information.
This implementation is for a **soft quota**: quota usage is checked
before an operation is to be performed, and the operation is *only*
denied if the user is already over quota. This makes it possible to go
over quota, but has the significant advantage of being practically
implementable within the current Forgejo architecture.
The goal of enforcement is to deny actions that can make the user go
over quota, and allow the rest. As such, deleting things should - in
almost all cases - be possible. A prime exemption is deleting files via
the web ui: that creates a new commit, which in turn increases repo
size, thus, is denied if the user is over quota.
Limitations
-----------
Because we generally work at a route decorator level, and rarely
look *into* the operation itself, `size:repos:public` and
`size:repos:private` are not enforced at this level, the engine enforces
against `size:repos:all`. This will be improved in the future.
AGit does not play very well with this system, because AGit PRs count
toward the repo they're opened against, while in the GitHub-style fork +
pull model, it counts against the fork. This too, can be improved in the
future.
There's very little done on the UI side to guard against going over
quota. What this patch implements, is enforcement, not prevention. The
UI will still let you *try* operations that *will* result in a denial.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Enable [unparam](https://github.com/mvdan/unparam) linter.
Often I could not tell the intention why param is unused, so I put
`//nolint` for those cases like webhook request creation functions never
using `ctx`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
(cherry picked from commit fc2d75f86d77b022ece848acf2581c14ef21d43b)
Conflicts:
modules/setting/config_env.go
modules/storage/azureblob.go
services/webhook/dingtalk.go
services/webhook/discord.go
services/webhook/feishu.go
services/webhook/matrix.go
services/webhook/msteams.go
services/webhook/packagist.go
services/webhook/slack.go
services/webhook/telegram.go
services/webhook/wechatwork.go
run make lint-go and fix Forgejo specific warnings
More about codespell: https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell .
I personally introduced it to dozens if not hundreds of projects already and so far only positive feedback.
```
❯ grep lint-spell Makefile
@echo " - lint-spell lint spelling"
@echo " - lint-spell-fix lint spelling and fix issues"
lint: lint-frontend lint-backend lint-spell
lint-fix: lint-frontend-fix lint-backend-fix lint-spell-fix
.PHONY: lint-spell
lint-spell: lint-codespell
.PHONY: lint-spell-fix
lint-spell-fix: lint-codespell-fix
❯ git grep lint- -- .forgejo/
.forgejo/workflows/testing.yml: - run: make --always-make -j$(nproc) lint-backend checks-backend # ensure the "go-licenses" make target runs
.forgejo/workflows/testing.yml: - run: make lint-frontend
```
so how would you like me to invoke `lint-codespell` on CI? (without that would be IMHO very suboptimal and let typos sneak in)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3270
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>
Co-committed-by: Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>
Noteable additions:
- `redefines-builtin-id` forbid variable names that shadow go builtins
- `empty-lines` remove unnecessary empty lines that `gofumpt` does not
remove for some reason
- `superfluous-else` eliminate more superfluous `else` branches
Rules are also sorted alphabetically and I cleaned up various parts of
`.golangci.yml`.
(cherry picked from commit 74f0c84fa4245a20ce6fb87dac1faf2aeeded2a2)
Conflicts:
.golangci.yml
apply the linter recommendations to Forgejo code as well
Since `modules/context` has to depend on `models` and many other
packages, it should be moved from `modules/context` to
`services/context` according to design principles. There is no logic
code change on this PR, only move packages.
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/context` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context`
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/contexttest` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/contexttest` because of depending on
context
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/upload` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload` because of depending on
context
(cherry picked from commit 29f149bd9f517225a3c9f1ca3fb0a7b5325af696)
Conflicts:
routers/api/packages/alpine/alpine.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_reaction.go
routers/install/install.go
routers/web/admin/config.go
routers/web/passkey.go
routers/web/repo/search.go
routers/web/repo/setting/default_branch.go
routers/web/user/home.go
routers/web/user/profile.go
tests/integration/editor_test.go
tests/integration/integration_test.go
tests/integration/mirror_push_test.go
trivial context conflicts
also modified all other occurrences in Forgejo specific files
This change allows act_runner / actions_runner to use jwt tokens for
`ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN` that are compatible with
actions/upload-artifact@v4.
The official Artifact actions are now validating and extracting the jwt
claim scp to get the runid and jobid, the old artifact backend also
needs to accept the same token jwt.
---
Related to #28853
I'm not familar with the auth system, maybe you know how to improve this
I have tested
- the jwt token is a valid token for artifact uploading
- the jwt token can be parsed by actions/upload-artifact@v4 and passes
their scp claim validation
Next steps would be a new artifacts@v4 backend.
~~I'm linking the act_runner change soonish.~~
act_runner change to make the change effective and use jwt tokens
<https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/471>
Fix `Uploaded artifacts should be overwritten`
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28549
When upload different content to uploaded artifact, it checks that
content size is not match in db record with previous artifact size, then
the new artifact is refused.
Now if it finds uploading content size is not matching db record when
receiving chunks, it updates db records to follow the latest size value.
Introduce the new generic deletion methods
- `func DeleteByID[T any](ctx context.Context, id int64) (int64, error)`
- `func DeleteByIDs[T any](ctx context.Context, ids ...int64) error`
- `func Delete[T any](ctx context.Context, opts FindOptions) (int64,
error)`
So, we no longer need any specific deletion method and can just use
the generic ones instead.
Replacement of #28450Closes#28450
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@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.
current actions artifacts implementation only support single file
artifact. To support multiple files uploading, it needs:
- save each file to each db record with same run-id, same artifact-name
and proper artifact-path
- need change artifact uploading url without artifact-id, multiple files
creates multiple artifact-ids
- support `path` in download-artifact action. artifact should download
to `{path}/{artifact-path}`.
- in repo action view, it provides zip download link in artifacts list
in summary page, no matter this artifact contains single or multiple
files.
1. The "web" package shouldn't depends on "modules/context" package,
instead, let each "web context" register themselves to the "web"
package.
2. The old Init/Free doesn't make sense, so simplify it
* The ctx in "Init(ctx)" is never used, and shouldn't be used that way
* The "Free" is never called and shouldn't be called because the SSPI
instance is shared
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Replace #16455Close#21803
Mixing different Gitea contexts together causes some problems:
1. Unable to respond proper content when error occurs, eg: Web should
respond HTML while API should respond JSON
2. Unclear dependency, eg: it's unclear when Context is used in
APIContext, which fields should be initialized, which methods are
necessary.
To make things clear, this PR introduces a Base context, it only
provides basic Req/Resp/Data features.
This PR mainly moves code. There are still many legacy problems and
TODOs in code, leave unrelated changes to future PRs.
