Previously, the repo wiki was hardcoded to use `master` as its branch,
this change makes it possible to use `main` (or something else, governed
by `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`, a setting that already exists and
defaults to `main`).
The way it is done is that a new column is added to the `repository`
table: `wiki_branch`. The migration will make existing repositories
default to `master`, for compatibility's sake, even if they don't have a
Wiki (because it's easier to do that). Newly created repositories will
default to `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH` instead.
The Wiki service was updated to use the branch name stored in the
database, and fall back to the default if it is empty.
Old repositories with Wikis using the older `master` branch will have
the option to do a one-time transition to `main`, available via the
repository settings in the "Danger Zone". This option will only be
available for repositories that have the internal wiki enabled, it is
not empty, and the wiki branch is not `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`.
When migrating a repository with a Wiki, Forgejo will use the same
branch name for the wiki as the source repository did. If that's not the
same as the default, the option to normalize it will be available after
the migration's done.
Additionally, the `/api/v1/{owner}/{repo}` endpoint was updated: it will
now include the wiki branch name in `GET` requests, and allow changing
the wiki branch via `PATCH`.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit d87c526d2a)
- When there's a succesful POST operation, it should return a 201 status
code (which is the status code for succesful created) and additionally
the created object.
- Currently for the `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/tags` endpoint an 200
status code was documented in the OpenAPI specification, while an 201
status code was actually being returned. In this case the code is
correct and the documented status code needs to be adjusted.
- Resolves#2200
(cherry picked from commit a2939116f5)
(cherry picked from commit 22cff41585)
(cherry picked from commit b23a7f27bb)
- The name could be conflucted with the `GET
/user/applications/oauth2/{id}` operation, as it only differed in a
single letter being uppercase. Change it to be
userGetOAuth2Application**s**, as that's also more accurate for this function.
- Resolves#2163
(cherry picked from commit 1891dac547)
(cherry picked from commit 68fceb9b7a)
(cherry picked from commit 7335d6de54)
- Document the correct content types for Git archives. Add code that
actually sets the correct application type for `.zip` and `.tar.gz`.
- When an action (POST/PUT/DELETE method) was successful, an 204 status
code should be returned instead of status code 200.
- Add and adjust integration testing.
- Resolves#2180
- Resolves#2181
(cherry picked from commit 6c8c4512b5)
(cherry picked from commit 3f74bcb14d)
(cherry picked from commit 6ed9057fd7)
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)
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)
Fixes#27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- Modify the `Password` field in `CreateUserOption` struct to remove the
`Required` tag
- Update the `v1_json.tmpl` template to include the `email` field and
remove the `password` field
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
## 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>
I noticed, that the push mirrors endpoint, is the only endpoint which
returns the times in long format rather than as time.Time().
I think the behavior should be consistent across the project.
----
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
This PR changes the time format used in API responses for all
push_mirror endpoints which return a push mirror.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Most middleware throw a 404 in case something is not found e.g. a Repo
that is not existing. But most API endpoints don't include the 404
response in their documentation. This PR changes this.
- Add routes for creating or updating a user's actions secrets in
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/user/action.go` with functions for
creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
- Modify the `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl` file to include the routes
for creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
- Modify the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function in `api.go` to include a
`Delete` operation for the secret
- Modify the `DeleteOrgSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the organization
- Modify the `DeleteSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the repository
- Modify the `v1_json.tmpl` template file to update the `operationId`
and `summary` for the `deleteSecret` operation in both the organization
and repository sections
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-a-repository-secret
- Add a new route for creating or updating a secret value in a
repository
- Create a new file `routers/api/v1/repo/action.go` with the
implementation of the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function
- Update the Swagger documentation for the `updateRepoSecret` operation
in the `v1_json.tmpl` template file
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
According to the GitHub API Spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-an-organization-secret
Merge the Create and Update secret into a single API.
- Remove the `CreateSecretOption` struct and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateSecretOption` in `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Update the `CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` to use `CreateOrUpdateSecretOption`
instead of `UpdateSecretOption`
- Remove the `CreateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret`
- Update the Swagger documentation in
`routers/api/v1/swagger/options.go` and `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl`
to reflect the changes in the struct names and function names
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- 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>
- Add a new `CreateSecretOption` struct for creating secrets
- Implement a `CreateOrgSecret` function to create a secret in an
organization
- Add a new route in `api.go` to handle the creation of organization
secrets
- Update the Swagger template to include the new `CreateOrgSecret` API
endpoint
---------
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new function `CountOrgSecrets` in the file
`models/secret/secret.go`
- Add a new file `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Add a new function `ListActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
- Add a new function `listActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
go-sdk: https://gitea.com/gitea/go-sdk/pulls/629
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Archived labels
This adds the structure to allow for archived labels.
Archived labels are, just like closed milestones or projects, a medium to hide information without deleting it.
It is especially useful if there are outdated labels that should no longer be used without deleting the label entirely.
## Changes
1. UI and API have been equipped with the support to mark a label as archived
2. The time when a label has been archived will be stored in the DB
## Outsourced for the future
There's no special handling for archived labels at the moment.
This will be done in the future.
## Screenshots
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25237
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
- The `NoBetterThan` function can only handle comparisons between
"pending," "success," "error," and "failure." For any other comparison,
we directly return false. This prevents logic errors like the one in
#26121.
- The callers of the `NoBetterThan` function should also avoid making
incomparable calls.
---------
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: puni9869 <80308335+puni9869@users.noreply.github.com>
Before: the concept "Content string" is used everywhere. It has some
problems:
1. Sometimes it means "base64 encoded content", sometimes it means "raw
binary content"
2. It doesn't work with large files, eg: uploading a 1G LFS file would
make Gitea process OOM
This PR does the refactoring: use "ContentReader" / "ContentBase64"
instead of "Content"
This PR is not breaking because the key in API JSON is still "content":
`` ContentBase64 string `json:"content"` ``
Fix#25558
Extract from #22743
This PR added a repository's check when creating/deleting branches via
API. Mirror repository and archive repository cannot do that.
This adds an API for uploading and Deleting Avatars for of Users, Repos
and Organisations. I'm not sure, if this should also be added to the
Admin API.
Resolves#25344
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
In the process of doing a bit of automation via the API, we've
discovered a _small_ issue in the Swagger definition. We tried to create
a push mirror for a repository, but our generated client raised an
exception due to an unexpected status code.
When looking at this function:
3c7f5ed7b5/routers/api/v1/repo/mirror.go (L236-L240)
We see it defines `201 - Created` as response:
3c7f5ed7b5/routers/api/v1/repo/mirror.go (L260-L262)
But it actually returns `200 - OK`:
3c7f5ed7b5/routers/api/v1/repo/mirror.go (L373)
So I've just updated the Swagger definitions to match the code😀
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fixes some issues with the swagger documentation for the new multiple
files API endpoint (#24887) which were overlooked when submitting the
original PR:
1. add some missing parameter descriptions
2. set correct `required` option for required parameters
3. change endpoint description to match it full functionality (every
kind of file modification is supported, not just creating and updating)
Gergely Nagy