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>
This is an implementation of a quota engine, and the API routes to
manage its settings. This does *not* contain any enforcement code: this
is just the bedrock, the engine itself.
The goal of the engine is to be flexible and future proof: to be nimble
enough to build on it further, without having to rewrite large parts of
it.
It might feel a little more complicated than necessary, because the goal
was to be able to support scenarios only very few Forgejo instances
need, scenarios the vast majority of mostly smaller instances simply do
not care about. The goal is to support both big and small, and for that,
we need a solid, flexible foundation.
There are thee big parts to the engine: counting quota use, setting
limits, and evaluating whether the usage is within the limits. Sounds
simple on paper, less so in practice!
Quota counting
==============
Quota is counted based on repo ownership, whenever possible, because
repo owners are in ultimate control over the resources they use: they
can delete repos, attachments, everything, even if they don't *own*
those themselves. They can clean up, and will always have the permission
and access required to do so. Would we count quota based on the owning
user, that could lead to situations where a user is unable to free up
space, because they uploaded a big attachment to a repo that has been
taken private since. It's both more fair, and much safer to count quota
against repo owners.
This means that if user A uploads an attachment to an issue opened
against organization O, that will count towards the quota of
organization O, rather than user A.
One's quota usage stats can be queried using the `/user/quota` API
endpoint. To figure out what's eating into it, the
`/user/repos?order_by=size`, `/user/quota/attachments`,
`/user/quota/artifacts`, and `/user/quota/packages` endpoints should be
consulted. There's also `/user/quota/check?subject=<...>` to check
whether the signed-in user is within a particular quota limit.
Quotas are counted based on sizes stored in the database.
Setting quota limits
====================
There are different "subjects" one can limit usage for. At this time,
only size-based limits are implemented, which are:
- `size:all`: As the name would imply, the total size of everything
Forgejo tracks.
- `size:repos:all`: The total size of all repositories (not including
LFS).
- `size:repos:public`: The total size of all public repositories (not
including LFS).
- `size:repos:private`: The total size of all private repositories (not
including LFS).
- `sizeall`: The total size of all git data (including all
repositories, and LFS).
- `sizelfs`: The size of all git LFS data (either in private or
public repos).
- `size:assets:all`: The size of all assets tracked by Forgejo.
- `size:assets:attachments:all`: The size of all kinds of attachments
tracked by Forgejo.
- `size:assets:attachments:issues`: Size of all attachments attached to
issues, including issue comments.
- `size:assets:attachments:releases`: Size of all attachments attached
to releases. This does *not* include automatically generated archives.
- `size:assets:artifacts`: Size of all Action artifacts.
- `size:assets:packages:all`: Size of all Packages.
- `size:wiki`: Wiki size
Wiki size is currently not tracked, and the engine will always deem it
within quota.
These subjects are built into Rules, which set a limit on *all* subjects
within a rule. Thus, we can create a rule that says: "1Gb limit on all
release assets, all packages, and git LFS, combined". For a rule to
stand, the total sum of all subjects must be below the rule's limit.
Rules are in turn collected into groups. A group is just a name, and a
list of rules. For a group to stand, all of its rules must stand. Thus,
if we have a group with two rules, one that sets a combined 1Gb limit on
release assets, all packages, and git LFS, and another rule that sets a
256Mb limit on packages, if the user has 512Mb of packages, the group
will not stand, because the second rule deems it over quota. Similarly,
if the user has only 128Mb of packages, but 900Mb of release assets, the
group will not stand, because the combined size of packages and release
assets is over the 1Gb limit of the first rule.
Groups themselves are collected into Group Lists. A group list stands
when *any* of the groups within stand. This allows an administrator to
set conservative defaults, but then place select users into additional
groups that increase some aspect of their limits.
To top it off, it is possible to set the default quota groups a user
belongs to in `app.ini`. If there's no explicit assignment, the engine
will use the default groups. This makes it possible to avoid having to
assign each and every user a list of quota groups, and only those need
to be explicitly assigned who need a different set of groups than the
defaults.
If a user has any quota groups assigned to them, the default list will
not be considered for them.
The management APIs
===================
This commit contains the engine itself, its unit tests, and the quota
management APIs. It does not contain any enforcement.
The APIs are documented in-code, and in the swagger docs, and the
integration tests can serve as an example on how to use them.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
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>
Add tag protection manage via rest API.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alexander Kogay <kogay.a@citilink.ru>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit d4e4226c3cbfa62a6adf15f4466747468eb208c7)
Conflicts:
modules/structs/repo_tag.go
trivial context conflict
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl
fixed with make generate-swagger
- Add endpoint to list repository action secrets in API routes
- Implement `ListActionsSecrets` function to retrieve action secrets
from the database
- Update Swagger documentation to include the new
`/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/secrets` endpoint
- Add `actions` package import and define new routes for actions,
secrets, variables, and runners in `api.go`.
- Refactor action-related API functions into `Action` struct methods in
`org/action.go` and `repo/action.go`.
- Remove `actionAPI` struct and related functions, replacing them with
`NewAction()` calls.
- Rename `variables.go` to `action.go` in `org` directory.
- Delete `runners.go` and `secrets.go` in both `org` and `repo`
directories, consolidating their content into `action.go`.
- Update copyright year and add new imports in `org/action.go`.
- Implement `API` interface in `services/actions/interface.go` for
action-related methods.
- Remove individual action-related functions and replace them with
methods on the `Action` struct in `repo/action.go`.
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 852547d0dc70299589c7bf8d00ea462ed709b8e5)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/api.go
trivial conflict because of Fix#2512 /api/forgejo/v1/version auth check (#2582)
- Add new `Compare` struct to represent comparison between two commits
- Introduce new API endpoint `/compare/*` to get commit comparison
information
- Create new file `repo_compare.go` with the `Compare` struct definition
- Add new file `compare.go` in `routers/api/v1/repo` to handle
comparison logic
- Add new file `compare.go` in `routers/common` to define `CompareInfo`
struct
- Refactor `ParseCompareInfo` function to use `common.CompareInfo`
struct
- Update Swagger documentation to include the new API endpoint for
commit comparison
- Remove duplicate `CompareInfo` struct from
`routers/web/repo/compare.go`
- Adjust base path in Swagger template to be relative (`/api/v1`)
GitHub API
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/commits?apiVersion=2022-11-28#compare-two-commits
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit c70e442ce4b99e2a1f1bf216afcfa1ad78d1925a)
Conflicts:
- routers/api/v1/swagger/repo.go
Conflict resolved by manually adding the lines from the Gitea
PR.
Add the same auth check and middlewares as the /v1/ API.
It require to export some variable from /v1 API, i am not sure if is the correct way to do
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2582
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Ada <ada@gnous.eu>
Co-committed-by: Ada <ada@gnous.eu>
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
Adds a new API `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/commits/{sha}/pull` that allows
you to get the merged PR associated to a commit.
---------
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
(cherry picked from commit 0a426cc575734e5eff410d6a790f40473117f753)
Similarly to how `[repository].DISABLE_FORKS` works, lets make
`[repository].DISABLE_STARS` disable the routes too, not just hide the
functionality from the UI.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
For small, personal self-hosted instances with no user signups, the fork
button is just a noise. This patch allows disabling them like stars can
be disabled too.
Disabling forks does not only remove the buttons from the web UI, it
also disables the routes that could be used to create forks.
Fixes#2441.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Follow #29165.
* Introduce JSONTemplate to help to render JSON templates
* Introduce JSEscapeSafe for templates. Now only use `{{ ... |
JSEscape}}` instead of `{{ ... | JSEscape | Safe}}`
* Simplify "UserLocationMapURL" useage
(cherry picked from commit 31bb9f3247388b993c61a10190cfd512408ce57e)
Instead of repeating the tests that verify the ID of a comment
is related to the repository of the API endpoint, add the middleware
function commentAssignment() to assign ctx.Comment if the ID of the
comment is verified to be related to the repository.
There already are integration tests for cases of potential unrelated
comment IDs that cover some of the modified endpoints which covers the
commentAssignment() function logic.
* TestAPICommentReactions - GetIssueCommentReactions
* TestAPICommentReactions - PostIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPICommentReactions - DeleteIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPIEditComment - EditIssueComment
* TestAPIDeleteComment - DeleteIssueComment
* TestAPIGetCommentAttachment - GetIssueCommentAttachment
The other modified endpoints do not have tests to verify cases of
potential unrelated comment IDs. They no longer need to because they
no longer implement the logic to enforce this. They however all have
integration tests that verify the commentAssignment() they now rely on
does not introduce a regression.
* TestAPIGetComment - GetIssueComment
* TestAPIListCommentAttachments - ListIssueCommentAttachments
* TestAPICreateCommentAttachment - CreateIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIEditCommentAttachment - EditIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIDeleteCommentAttachment - DeleteIssueCommentAttachment
(cherry picked from commit d414376d74)
(cherry picked from commit 09db07aeae)
(cherry picked from commit f44830c3cb)
Conflicts:
modules/context/api.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2249
(cherry picked from commit 9d1bf7be15)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
Expose the repository flags feature over the API, so the flags can be
managed by a site administrator without using the web API.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit bac9f0225d)
(cherry picked from commit e7f5c1ba14)
(cherry picked from commit 95d9fe19cf)
(cherry picked from commit 7fc51991e4)
- Switch the supported schemas for the Swagger API around, such that
https is the first one listed. This ensures that when the Swagger API is
used it will default to the https schema, which is likely the schema you
want to use in the majority of the cases.
- Resolves#1895
BREAKING CHANGE NOTICE:
If you are using the Swagger API JSON directly to communicate with the
Forgejo API, the library you are using may be using the first schema
defined in the JSON file (e.g. https://code.forgejo.org/swagger.v1.json)
to construct the request url, this used to be `http` but has now changed
to `https`. This can cause failures if you want to send the swagger
request over `http` (and there is no HTTPS redirection configured).
(cherry picked from commit 81e5f43886)
(cherry picked from commit d847469ea2)
(cherry picked from commit 96e75e1d5c)
(cherry picked from commit 65baa64261)
(cherry picked from commit cd3e0a74e6)
(cherry picked from commit a3127e90b2)
(cherry picked from commit 2b22272dc5)
(cherry picked from commit 7363790592)
(cherry picked from commit 432b9a4451)
- Add the ability to block a user via their profile page.
- This will unstar their repositories and visa versa.
- Blocked users cannot create issues or pull requests on your the doer's repositories (mind that this is not the case for organizations).
- Blocked users cannot comment on the doer's opened issues or pull requests.
- Blocked users cannot add reactions to doer's comments.
- Blocked users cannot cause a notification trough mentioning the doer.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/540
(cherry picked from commit 687d852480)
(cherry picked from commit 0c32a4fde5)
(cherry picked from commit 1791130e3c)
(cherry picked from commit 37858b7e8f)
(cherry picked from commit a3e2bfd7e9)
(cherry picked from commit 7009b9fe87)
Conflicts: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1014
routers/web/user/profile.go
templates/user/profile.tmpl
(cherry picked from commit b2aec34791)
(cherry picked from commit e2f1b73752)
[MODERATION] organization blocking a user (#802)
- Resolves#476
- Follow up for: #540
- Ensure that the doer and blocked person cannot follow each other.
- Ensure that the block person cannot watch doer's repositories.
- Add unblock button to the blocked user list.
- Add blocked since information to the blocked user list.
- Add extra testing to moderation code.
- Blocked user will unwatch doer's owned repository upon blocking.
- Add flash messages to let the user know the block/unblock action was successful.
- Add "You haven't blocked any users" message.
- Add organization blocking a user.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/802
(cherry picked from commit 0505a10421)
(cherry picked from commit 37b4e6ef9b)
(cherry picked from commit c17c121f2c)
[MODERATION] organization blocking a user (#802) (squash)
Changes to adapt to:
6bbccdd177 Improve AJAX link and modal confirm dialog (#25210)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/882/files#issuecomment-945962
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/882#issue-330561
(cherry picked from commit 523635f83c)
(cherry picked from commit 4743eaa6a0)
(cherry picked from commit eff5b43d2e)
Conflicts: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1014
routers/web/user/profile.go
(cherry picked from commit 9d359be5ed)
(cherry picked from commit b1f3069a22)
[MODERATION] add user blocking API
- Follow up for: #540, #802
- Add API routes for user blocking from user and organization
perspective.
- The new routes have integration testing.
- The new model functions have unit tests.
- Actually quite boring to write and to read this pull request.
(cherry picked from commit f3afaf15c7)
(cherry picked from commit 6d754db3e5)
(cherry picked from commit 2a89ddc0ac)
(cherry picked from commit 4a147bff7e)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/api.go
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl
(cherry picked from commit bb8c339185)
(cherry picked from commit 5a11569a01)
(cherry picked from commit 2373c801ee)
[MODERATION] restore redirect on unblock
ctx.RedirectToFirst(ctx.FormString("redirect_to"), ctx.ContextUser.HomeLink())
was replaced by
ctx.JSONOK()
in 128d77a3a Following up fixes for "Fix inconsistent user profile layout across tabs" (#25739)
thus changing the behavior (nicely spotted by the tests). This
restores it.
(cherry picked from commit 597c243707)
(cherry picked from commit cfa539e590)
[MODERATION] Add test case (squash)
- Add an test case, to test an property of the function.
(cherry picked from commit 70dadb1916)
[MODERATION] Block adding collaborators
- Ensure that the doer and blocked user cannot add each other as
collaborators to repositories.
- The Web UI gets an detailed message of the specific situation, the API
gets an generic Forbidden code.
- Unit tests has been added.
- Integration testing for Web and API has been added.
- This commit doesn't introduce removing each other as collaborators on
the block action, due to the complexity of database calls that needs to
be figured out. That deserves its own commit and test code.
(cherry picked from commit 747be949a1)
[MODERATION] move locale_en-US.ini strings to avoid conflicts
Conflicts:
web_src/css/org.css
web_src/css/user.css
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1180
(cherry picked from commit e53f955c88)
Conflicts:
services/issue/comments.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1212
(cherry picked from commit b4a454b576)
Conflicts:
models/forgejo_migrations/migrate.go
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
services/pull/pull.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1264
[MODERATION] Remove blocked user collaborations with doer
- When the doer blocks an user, who is also an collaborator on an
repository that the doer owns, remove that collaboration.
- Added unit tests.
- Refactor the unit test to be more organized.
(cherry picked from commit ec87016178)
(cherry picked from commit 313e6174d8)
[MODERATION] QoL improvements (squash)
- Ensure that organisations cannot be blocked. It currently has no
effect, as all blocked operations cannot be executed from an
organisation standpoint.
- Refactored the API route to make use of the `UserAssignmentAPI`
middleware.
- Make more use of `t.Run` so that the test code is more clear about
which block of code belongs to which test case.
- Added more integration testing (to ensure the organisations cannot be
blocked and some authorization/permission checks).
(cherry picked from commit e9d638d075)
[MODERATION] s/{{avatar/{{ctx.AvatarUtils.Avatar/
(cherry picked from commit ce8b30be13)
(cherry picked from commit f911dc4025)
Conflicts:
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1354
(cherry picked from commit c1b37b7fda)
(cherry picked from commit 856a2e0903)
[MODERATION] Show graceful error on comment creation
- When someone is blocked by the repository owner or issue poster and
try to comment on that issue, they get shown a graceful error.
- Adds integration test.
(cherry picked from commit 490646302e)
(cherry picked from commit d3d88667cb)
(cherry picked from commit 6818de13a9)
[MODERATION] Show graceful error on comment creation (squash) typo
(cherry picked from commit 1588d4834a)
(cherry picked from commit d510ea52d0)
(cherry picked from commit 8249e93a14)
[MODERATION] Refactor integration testing (squash)
- Motivation for this PR is that I'd noticed that a lot of repeated
calls are happening between the test functions and that certain tests
weren't using helper functions like `GetCSRF`, therefor this refactor of
the integration tests to keep it: clean, small and hopefully more
maintainable and understandable.
- There are now three integration tests: `TestBlockUser`,
`TestBlockUserFromOrganization` and `TestBlockActions` (and has been
moved in that order in the source code).
- `TestBlockUser` is for doing blocking related actions as an user and
`TestBlockUserFromOrganization` as an organisation, even though they
execute the same kind of tests they do not share any database calls or
logic and therefor it currently doesn't make sense to merge them
together (hopefully such oppurtinutiy might be presented in the future).
- `TestBlockActions` now contain all tests for actions that should be
blocked after blocking has happened, most tests now share the same doer
and blocked users and a extra fixture has been added to make this
possible for the comment test.
- Less code, more comments and more re-use between tests.
(cherry picked from commit ffb393213d)
(cherry picked from commit 85505e0f81)
(cherry picked from commit 0f3cf17761)
[MODERATION] Fix network error (squash)
- Fix network error toast messages on user actions such as follow and
unfollow. This happened because the javascript code now expects an JSON
to be returned, but this wasn't the case due to
cfa539e590127b4953b010fba3dea21c82a1714.
- The integration testing has been adjusted to instead test for the
returned flash cookie.
(cherry picked from commit 112bc25e54)
(cherry picked from commit 1194fe4899)
(cherry picked from commit 9abb95a844)
[MODERATION] Modernize frontend (squash)
- Unify blocked users list.
- Use the new flex list classes for blocked users list to avoid using
the CSS helper classes and thereby be consistent in the design.
- Fix the modal by using the new modal class.
- Remove the icon in the modal as looks too big in the new design.
- Fix avatar not displaying as it was passing the context where the user
should've been passed.
- Don't use italics for 'Blocked since' text.
- Use namelink template to display the user's name and homelink.
(cherry picked from commit ec935a16a3)
(cherry picked from commit 67f37c8346)
Conflicts:
models/user/follow.go
models/user/user_test.go
routers/api/v1/user/follower.go
routers/web/shared/user/header.go
routers/web/user/profile.go
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1468
(cherry picked from commit 6a9626839c)
Conflicts:
tests/integration/api_nodeinfo_test.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1508#issuecomment-1242385
(cherry picked from commit 7378b251b4)
Conflicts:
models/fixtures/watch.yml
models/issues/reaction.go
models/issues/reaction_test.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_reaction.go
routers/web/repo/issue.go
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1547
(cherry picked from commit c2028930c1)
(cherry picked from commit d3f9134aee)
(cherry picked from commit 7afe154c5c)
(cherry picked from commit 99ac7353eb)
(cherry picked from commit a9cde00c5c)
Conflicts:
services/user/delete.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1736
(cherry picked from commit 008c0cc63d)
[DEADCODE] add exceptions
(cherry picked from commit 12ddd2b10e)
[MODERATION] Remove deadcode (squash)
- Remove deadcode that's no longer used by Forgejo.
(cherry picked from commit 0faeab4fa9)
[MODERATION] Add repo transfers to blocked functionality (squash)
- When someone gets blocked, remove all pending repository transfers
from the blocked user to the doer.
- Do not allow to start transferring repositories to the doer as blocked user.
- Added unit testing.
- Added integration testing.
(cherry picked from commit 8a3caac330)
(cherry picked from commit a92b4cfeb6)
(cherry picked from commit acaaaf07d9)
(cherry picked from commit 735818863c)
(cherry picked from commit f50fa43b32)
(cherry picked from commit e166836433)
(cherry picked from commit 82a0e4a381)
(cherry picked from commit ff233c19c4)
(cherry picked from commit 8ad87d215f)
[MODERATION] Fix unblock action (squash)
- Pass the whole context instead of only giving pieces.
- This fixes CSRF not correctly being inserted into the unblock buttons.
(cherry picked from commit 2aa51922ba)
(cherry picked from commit 7ee8db0f01)
(cherry picked from commit e4f8b999bc)
(cherry picked from commit 05aea60b13)
(cherry picked from commit dc0d61b012)
(cherry picked from commit f53fa583de)
(cherry picked from commit c65b89a58d)
(cherry picked from commit 69e50b9969)
(cherry picked from commit ec127440b8)
[MODERATION] cope with shared fixtures
* There is one more issue in the fixtures and this breaks some tests
* The users in the shared fixtures were renamed for clarity and that
breaks some tests
(cherry picked from commit 707a4edbdf)
Conflicts:
modules/indexer/issues/indexer_test.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1508
(cherry picked from commit 82cc044366)
(cherry picked from commit 2776aec7e8)
(cherry picked from commit 1fbde36dc7)
(cherry picked from commit 1293db3c4e)
(cherry picked from commit 6476802175)
(cherry picked from commit 5740f2fc83)
(cherry picked from commit afc12d7b6e)
[MODERATION] Fix transfer confirmation (squash)
- Fix problem caused by the clearer confirmation for dangerous actions commit.
(cherry picked from commit 3488f4a9cb)
(cherry picked from commit ed7de91f6a)
(cherry picked from commit 2d97929b9b)
(cherry picked from commit 50d035a7b0)
(cherry picked from commit 0a0c07d78a)
(cherry picked from commit 85e55c4dbc)
(cherry picked from commit d8282122ad)
(cherry picked from commit 3f0b3b6cc5)
[MODERATION] Purge issues on user deletion (squash)
(cherry picked from commit 4f529d9596)
(cherry picked from commit f0e3acadd3)
(cherry picked from commit 682c4effe6)
(cherry picked from commit e43c2d84fd)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8e53ccc7)
(cherry picked from commit a9eb7ac783)
[MODERATION] Purge issues on user deletion (squash) revert shared fixtures workarounds
(cherry picked from commit 7224653a40)
(cherry picked from commit aa6e8672f9)
(cherry picked from commit 58c7947e95)
(cherry picked from commit f1aacb1851)
(cherry picked from commit 0bf174af87)
(cherry picked from commit f9706f4335)
[MODERATION] Prepare moderation for context locale changes (squash)
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1711
(cherry picked from commit 2e289baea9)
(cherry picked from commit 97b16bc19a)
[MODERATION] User blocking (squash) do not use shared fixture
It conflicts with a fixtured added in the commit
Fix comment permissions (#28213) (#28216)
(cherry picked from commit ab40799dcab24e9f495d765268b791931da81684)
(cherry picked from commit 996c92cafd)
(cherry picked from commit 259912e3a6)
Conflicts:
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1921
(cherry picked from commit 1e82abc032)
(cherry picked from commit a176fee160)
(cherry picked from commit 0480b76dfe)
(cherry picked from commit 4bc06b7b38)
(cherry picked from commit 073094cf72)
(cherry picked from commit ac6201c647)
(cherry picked from commit 7e0812674d)
(cherry picked from commit 068c741e56)
Conflicts:
models/repo_transfer.go
models/repo_transfer_test.go
routers/web/user/profile.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2298
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)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_attachment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1575
(cherry picked from commit d072525b35)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3d)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec7)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) apply the 'update_at' value to the cross-ref comments (#1676)
[this is a follow-up to PR #764]
When a comment of issue A referencing issue B is added with a forced 'updated_at' date, that date has to be applied to the comment created in issue B.
-----
Comment:
While trying my 'RoundUp migration script', I found that this case was forgotten in PR #764 - my apologies...
I'll try to write a functional test, base on models/issues/issue_xref_test.go
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1676
Co-authored-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
Co-committed-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
(cherry picked from commit ac4f727f63)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9)
(cherry picked from commit 77ba6be1da)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8337b5c4)
(cherry picked from commit 1d689eb686)
(cherry picked from commit 511c519c87)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b4a8f61)
(cherry picked from commit fdd4da111c)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) do not use token= query param
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/33439b733a
(cherry picked from commit c5139a75b9)
(cherry picked from commit c7b572c35d)
(cherry picked from commit aec7503ff6)
(cherry picked from commit 87c65f2a49)
(cherry picked from commit bd47ee33c2)
(cherry picked from commit f3dbd90a74)
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
## Changes
- Add deprecation warning to `Token` and `AccessToken` authentication
methods in swagger.
- Add deprecation warning header to API response. Example:
```
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Warning: token and access_token API authentication is deprecated
...
```
- Add setting `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` to reject query string auth
tokens entirely. Default is `false`
## Next steps
- `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` should be true in a subsequent release and
the methods should be removed in swagger
- `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` should be removed and the implementation of
the auth methods in question should be removed
## Open questions
- Should there be further changes to the swagger documentation?
Deprecation is not yet supported for security definitions (coming in
[OpenAPI Spec version
3.2.0](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/issues/2506))
- Should the API router logger sanitize urls that use `token` or
`access_token`? (This is obviously an insufficient solution on its own)
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
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.
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>
