From
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/31018#issuecomment-2119622680.
This commit removes the link to a deleted branch name because it returns
a 404 while it is in this deleted state. GitHub also throws a 404 when
navigating to a branch link that was just deleted, but this deleted
branch is removed from the branch list after a page refresh. Since with
Gitea this deleted branch would be kept around for quite some time
(well, until the "cleanup deleted branches" cron job begins), it makes
sense to not have this as a link that users can navigate to.
(cherry picked from commit 1007ce764ea80b48120b796175d7d1210cbb6f74)
Remove "EncodeSha1", it shouldn't be used as a general purpose hasher
(just like we have removed "EncodeMD5" in #28622)
Rewrite the "time-limited code" related code and write better tests, the
old code doesn't seem quite right.
(cherry picked from commit fb1ad920b769799aa1287441289d15477d9878c5)
Conflicts:
modules/git/utils_test.go
trivial context conflict because sha256 testing in Forgejo has diverged
Fix#30992
(cherry picked from commit 47accfebbd69e5f47d1b97a3e39cf181fab7e597)
Conflicts:
models/unit/unit.go
trivial context conflict because of
e07b0e75ff Add a direct link from repo header to unit settings
When creating a repo, the "FORCE_PRIVATE" config option should be
respected, `readonly` doesn't work for checkbox, so it should use
`disabled` attribute.
(cherry picked from commit edbf74c418061b013a5855f604dd6be6baf34132)
Conflicts:
templates/repo/create.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/codebase.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/git.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/gitbucket.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/gitea.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/github.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/gitlab.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/gogs.tmpl
templates/repo/migrate/onedev.tmpl
already in forgejo fc0c5e80da Fix and improve repo visibility checkbox when FORCE_PRIVATE is on (#3786)
enforcing FORCE_PRIVATE on repo settings was manually tested
with a repository of an unprivileged user after setting
FORCE_PRIVATE = true
Mostly cap fixes and a few improvements.
As for `activity.active_prs_count_`, it currently looks like this in the UI, I fixed it:
Although I'm also the person who [introduced](4c1af0d9a6) the inconsistency.
`send_reset_mail` is a button, removed redundant word from it. It would be good to refactor such keys, but it will be an impossibly long process. Anyway, key refactors are done in separate PRs for easier merges.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3912
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
the test file used has a size below the default threshold and will
never be compressed because of that, regardless of its extension. Reduce
the threshold to 10 bytes otherwise the test is a false positive.
regression from 767e9634d3. It changed
the parsing of the [admin] section from being derived from the content
of each key with mustMapSetting(rootCfg, "admin", &Admin) to
explicitly listing all keys in the code.
SEND_NOTIFICATION_EMAIL_ON_NEW_USER was not added and therefore
ignored. As a consequence notifications of newly registered users were
never sent.
There is no need to pin a specific patch version for testing. The
worst that can happen in this context is that the CI fails and it can
be addressed in this context. It will not impact releases.
This adds a new test case to `TestCompareCodeExpand` to exercise the
case where we're viewing a PR's diff.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
When comparing files between the base repo and forked repo, the "blob
excerpt" link should point to the forked repo, because the commit
doesn't exist in base repo.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit f48cc501c46a2d34eb701561f01d888d689d60d5)
Conflicts:
- templates/repo/diff/section_split.tmpl
- templates/repo/diff/section_unified.tmpl
Resolved the conflict by picking Gitea's change over ours, and
porting it.
- tests/integration/compare_test.go
Kept our test, but picked the "compare all of the relevant
links" part of the Gitea test.
PR will finalize the ability to receive a federated star from a remote instance.
This is part of: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1680
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3871
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de>
Co-committed-by: Michael Jerger <michael.jerger@meissa-gmbh.de>
Kemal Zebari