https://gitea.com/gitea/gitea-docusaurus/actions/runs/661/jobs/0#jobstep-9-39
I noticed that there are many warning logs in building docs.
It is causing 404 in docs.gitea.com now, so we need to fix it.
And there are also some other problems in v1.19 which can not be done in
this PR.
ps: Are there any good methods to test this in local?
- Currently the repository description uses the same sanitizer as a
normal markdown document. This means that element such as heading and
images are allowed and can be abused.
- Create a minimal restricted sanitizer for the repository description,
which only allows what the postprocessor currently allows, which are
links and emojis.
- Added unit testing.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1202
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1122
(cherry picked from commit 631c87cc23)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Fix#25473
Although there was `m.Post("/login/oauth/access_token", CorsHandler()...`,
it never really worked, because it still lacks the "OPTIONS" handler.
When the form is going to be submitted, add the "is-loading" class to
show an indicator and avoid user UI events.
When the request finishes (success / error), remove the "is-loading"
class to make user can interact the UI.
- Update all JS and PY dependencies minus `@mcaptcha/vanilla-glue`
- Adapt to eslint rule rename
- Regenerate all SVGs because of [new
optimizations](https://github.com/svg/svgo/releases/tag/v3.0.4) from
svgo.
- Tested mentions, mermaid, vue, api docs
When writing the release blog, it is really annoying and time-consuming
to re-discover and write down how a feature behaves and capture a
screenshot of it, for every single feature merged since the last
release.
This should not be the responsibility of maintainers, but rather of the
person implementing a feature in the first place.
They know best how to use the feature and how to gather screenshots for
it.
Similarly for breaking changes and their effects.
As such, let's require everything to be up-to-date and easily
understandable before merging features or breaking changes.
Hi,
This PR fixes#27988. The use of `path.join`(which uses `/` as the file
separator) to construct paths and comparing them with paths constructed
using `filepath.join`(which uses platform specific file separator) is
the root cause of this issue.
The desired behavior is to ignore attachments when dumping data
directory. Due to the what's mentioned above, the function
`addRecursiveExclude` is not actually ignoring the attachments directory
and is being written to the archive. The attachment directory is again
added to the archive (with different file separator as mentioned in the
issue) causing a duplicate entry on windows.
The solution is to use `filepath.join` in `addResursiveExclude` to
construct `currentAbsPath`.
Changed behavior to calculate package quota limit using package `creator
ID` instead of `owner ID`.
Currently, users are allowed to create an unlimited number of
organizations, each of which has its own package limit quota, resulting
in the ability for users to have unlimited package space in different
organization scopes. This fix will calculate package quota based on
`package version creator ID` instead of `package version owner ID`
(which might be organization), so that users are not allowed to take
more space than configured package settings.
Also, there is a side case in which users can publish packages to a
specific package version, initially published by different user, taking
that user package size quota. Version in fix should be better because
the total amount of space is limited to the quota for users sharing the
same organization scope.
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)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1458
Some mails such as issue creation mails are missing the reply-to-comment
address. This PR fixes that and specifies which comment types should get
a reply-possibility.
