Verify variations of branch protection that are in play when merging a
pull request as:
* instance admin
* repository admin / owner
* user with write permissions on the repository
In all cases the result is expected to be the same when merging
the pull request via:
* API
* web
Although the implementations are different.
* split into testPullMergeForm which can be called directly if
the caller wants to specify extra parameters.
* testPullMergeForm can expect something different than StatusOK
Replace #25741Close#24445Close#30658Close#20646
~Depends on #30805~
Since #25741 has been rewritten totally, to make the contribution
easier, I will continue the work in this PR. Thanks @6543
---------
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit c6cf96d31d80ab79d370a6192fd761b4443daec2)
Conflicts:
tests/integration/editor_test.go
trivial context conflict because of 75ce1e2ac1 [GITEA] Allow user to select email for file operations in Web UI
tests/integration/pull_merge_test.go
trivial context conflicts in imports because more tests were added in Forgejo
This PR will avoid load pullrequest.Issue twice in pull request list
page. It will reduce x times database queries for those WIP pull
requests.
Partially fix#29585
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit 62f8174aa2fae1481c7e17a6afcb731a5b178cd0)
Conflicts:
models/activities/notification_list.go
moved to models/activities/notification.go
Clarify when "string" should be used (and be escaped), and when
"template.HTML" should be used (no need to escape)
And help PRs like #29059 , to render the error messages correctly.
(cherry picked from commit f3eb835886031df7a562abc123c3f6011c81eca8)
Conflicts:
modules/web/middleware/binding.go
routers/web/feed/convert.go
tests/integration/branches_test.go
tests/integration/repo_branch_test.go
trivial context conflicts
With this option, it is possible to require a linear commit history with
the following benefits over the next best option `Rebase+fast-forward`:
The original commits continue existing, with the original signatures
continuing to stay valid instead of being rewritten, there is no merge
commit, and reverting commits becomes easier.
Closes#24906
These tests originate from Gitea, so may cause conflicts in the longer
run. But they use the same pattern, so transitioning them to the helper
is hopefully a benefit that offsets the risk.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 2d475af494)
(cherry picked from commit a99c17729c)
## Purpose
This is a refactor toward building an abstraction over managing git
repositories.
Afterwards, it does not matter anymore if they are stored on the local
disk or somewhere remote.
## What this PR changes
We used `git.OpenRepository` everywhere previously.
Now, we should split them into two distinct functions:
Firstly, there are temporary repositories which do not change:
```go
git.OpenRepository(ctx, diskPath)
```
Gitea managed repositories having a record in the database in the
`repository` table are moved into the new package `gitrepo`:
```go
gitrepo.OpenRepository(ctx, repo_model.Repo)
```
Why is `repo_model.Repository` the second parameter instead of file
path?
Because then we can easily adapt our repository storage strategy.
The repositories can be stored locally, however, they could just as well
be stored on a remote server.
## Further changes in other PRs
- A Git Command wrapper on package `gitrepo` could be created. i.e.
`NewCommand(ctx, repo_model.Repository, commands...)`. `git.RunOpts{Dir:
repo.RepoPath()}`, the directory should be empty before invoking this
method and it can be filled in the function only. #28940
- Remove the `RepoPath()`/`WikiPath()` functions to reduce the
possibility of mistakes.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Sometimes you need to work on a feature which depends on another (unmerged) feature.
In this case, you may create a PR based on that feature instead of the main branch.
Currently, such PRs will be closed without the possibility to reopen in case the parent feature is merged and its branch is deleted.
Automatic target branch change make life a lot easier in such cases.
Github and Bitbucket behave in such way.
Example:
$PR_1$: main <- feature1
$PR_2$: feature1 <- feature2
Currently, merging $PR_1$ and deleting its branch leads to $PR_2$ being closed without the possibility to reopen.
This is both annoying and loses the review history when you open a new PR.
With this change, $PR_2$ will change its target branch to main ($PR_2$: main <- feature2) after $PR_1$ has been merged and its branch has been deleted.
This behavior is enabled by default but can be disabled.
For security reasons, this target branch change will not be executed when merging PRs targeting another repo.
Fixes#27062Fixes#18408
---------
Co-authored-by: Denys Konovalov <kontakt@denyskon.de>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- Make use of the `form-fetch-action` for the merge button, which will
automatically prevent the action from happening multiple times and show
a nice loading indicator as user feedback while the merge request is
being processed by the server.
- Adjust the merge PR code to JSON response as this is required for the
`form-fetch-action` functionality.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/774
- Likely resolves the cause of
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1688#issuecomment-1313044
(cherry picked from commit 4ec64c19507caefff7ddaad722b1b5792b97cc5a)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
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"` ``
## Changes
- Adds the following high level access scopes, each with `read` and
`write` levels:
- `activitypub`
- `admin` (hidden if user is not a site admin)
- `misc`
- `notification`
- `organization`
- `package`
- `issue`
- `repository`
- `user`
- Adds new middleware function `tokenRequiresScopes()` in addition to
`reqToken()`
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` is used for each high-level api section
- _if_ a scoped token is present, checks that the required scope is
included based on the section and HTTP method
- `reqToken()` is used for individual routes
- checks that required authentication is present (but does not check
scope levels as this will already have been handled by
`tokenRequiresScopes()`
- Adds migration to convert old scoped access tokens to the new set of
scopes
- Updates the user interface for scope selection
### User interface example
<img width="903" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 55 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/654766ec-2143-4f59-9037-3b51600e32f3">
<img width="917" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 43 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/1ad64081-012c-4a73-b393-66b30352654c">
## tokenRequiresScopes Design Decision
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` was added to more reliably cover api routes.
For an incoming request, this function uses the given scope category
(say `AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization`) and the HTTP method (say
`DELETE`) and verifies that any scoped tokens in use include
`delete:organization`.
- `reqToken()` is used to enforce auth for individual routes that
require it. If a scoped token is not present for a request,
`tokenRequiresScopes()` will not return an error
## TODO
- [x] Alphabetize scope categories
- [x] Change 'public repos only' to a radio button (private vs public).
Also expand this to organizations
- [X] Disable token creation if no scopes selected. Alternatively, show
warning
- [x] `reqToken()` is missing from many `POST/DELETE` routes in the api.
`tokenRequiresScopes()` only checks that a given token has the correct
scope, `reqToken()` must be used to check that a token (or some other
auth) is present.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] The migration should be reviewed very carefully in order to
minimize access changes to existing user tokens.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] Link to api to swagger documentation, clarify what
read/write/delete levels correspond to
- [x] Review cases where more than one scope is needed as this directly
deviates from the api definition.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- For example:
```go
m.Group("/users/{username}/orgs", func() {
m.Get("", reqToken(), org.ListUserOrgs)
m.Get("/{org}/permissions", reqToken(), org.GetUserOrgsPermissions)
}, tokenRequiresScopes(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser,
auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization),
context_service.UserAssignmentAPI())
```
## Future improvements
- [ ] Add required scopes to swagger documentation
- [ ] Redesign `reqToken()` to be opt-out rather than opt-in
- [ ] Subdivide scopes like `repository`
- [ ] Once a token is created, if it has no scopes, we should display
text instead of an empty bullet point
- [ ] If the 'public repos only' option is selected, should read
categories be selected by default
Closes#24501Closes#24799
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jon@allspice.io>
Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
This PR creates an API endpoint for creating/updating/deleting multiple
files in one API call similar to the solution provided by
[GitLab](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/commits.html#create-a-commit-with-multiple-files-and-actions).
To archive this, the CreateOrUpdateRepoFile and DeleteRepoFIle functions
in files service are unified into one function supporting multiple files
and actions.
Resolves#14619
This PR follows #21535 (and replace #22592)
## Review without space diff
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22678/files?diff=split&w=1
## Purpose of this PR
1. Make git module command completely safe (risky user inputs won't be
passed as argument option anymore)
2. Avoid low-level mistakes like
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22098#discussion_r1045234918
3. Remove deprecated and dirty `CmdArgCheck` function, hide the `CmdArg`
type
4. Simplify code when using git command
## The main idea of this PR
* Move the `git.CmdArg` to the `internal` package, then no other package
except `git` could use it. Then developers could never do
`AddArguments(git.CmdArg(userInput))` any more.
* Introduce `git.ToTrustedCmdArgs`, it's for user-provided and already
trusted arguments. It's only used in a few cases, for example: use git
arguments from config file, help unit test with some arguments.
* Introduce `AddOptionValues` and `AddOptionFormat`, they make code more
clear and simple:
* Before: `AddArguments("-m").AddDynamicArguments(message)`
* After: `AddOptionValues("-m", message)`
* -
* Before: `AddArguments(git.CmdArg(fmt.Sprintf("--author='%s <%s>'",
sig.Name, sig.Email)))`
* After: `AddOptionFormat("--author='%s <%s>'", sig.Name, sig.Email)`
## FAQ
### Why these changes were not done in #21535 ?
#21535 is mainly a search&replace, it did its best to not change too
much logic.
Making the framework better needs a lot of changes, so this separate PR
is needed as the second step.
### The naming of `AddOptionXxx`
According to git's manual, the `--xxx` part is called `option`.
### How can it guarantee that `internal.CmdArg` won't be not misused?
Go's specification guarantees that. Trying to access other package's
internal package causes compilation error.
And, `golangci-lint` also denies the git/internal package. Only the
`git/command.go` can use it carefully.
### There is still a `ToTrustedCmdArgs`, will it still allow developers
to make mistakes and pass untrusted arguments?
Generally speaking, no. Because when using `ToTrustedCmdArgs`, the code
will be very complex (see the changes for examples). Then developers and
reviewers can know that something might be unreasonable.
### Why there was a `CmdArgCheck` and why it's removed?
At the moment of #21535, to reduce unnecessary changes, `CmdArgCheck`
was introduced as a hacky patch. Now, almost all code could be written
as `cmd := NewCommand(); cmd.AddXxx(...)`, then there is no need for
`CmdArgCheck` anymore.
### Why many codes for `signArg == ""` is deleted?
Because in the old code, `signArg` could never be empty string, it's
either `-S[key-id]` or `--no-gpg-sign`. So the `signArg == ""` is just
dead code.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This PR adds the support for scopes of access tokens, mimicking the
design of GitHub OAuth scopes.
The changes of the core logic are in `models/auth` that `AccessToken`
struct will have a `Scope` field. The normalized (no duplication of
scope), comma-separated scope string will be stored in `access_token`
table in the database.
In `services/auth`, the scope will be stored in context, which will be
used by `reqToken` middleware in API calls. Only OAuth2 tokens will have
granular token scopes, while others like BasicAuth will default to scope
`all`.
A large amount of work happens in `routers/api/v1/api.go` and the
corresponding `tests/integration` tests, that is adding necessary scopes
to each of the API calls as they fit.
- [x] Add `Scope` field to `AccessToken`
- [x] Add access control to all API endpoints
- [x] Update frontend & backend for when creating tokens
- [x] Add a database migration for `scope` column (enable 'all' access
to past tokens)
I'm aiming to complete it before Gitea 1.19 release.
Fixes#4300
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
TheFox0x7