If the assign the pull request review to a team, it did not show the
members of the team in the "requested_reviewers" field, so the field was
null. As a solution, I added the team members to the array.
fix#31764
(cherry picked from commit 94cca8846e7d62c8a295d70c8199d706dfa60e5c)
This reverts commit 4ed372af13.
This change from Gitea was not considered by the Forgejo UI team and there is a consensus that it feels like a regression.
The test which was added in that commit is kept and modified to test that reviews can successfully be submitted on closed and merged PRs.
Closesforgejo/design#11
---
Conflict resolution: trivial
Things done differently: Improve localization message, use the paragraph
element instead of the div element, fix passing this variable to the
template and add a integration test
(cherry picked from commit 9633f336c87947dc7d2a5e76077a10699ba5e50d)
- Add the 'correct' styling for column on the link account page, this
follows what was done for the login/register page in 629ca22a97.
- Move some if conditions to be outside of the container which allocates
space on the page, this ensures it's not being shown if it's not needed.
- Resolves#4844
`BranchName` provides the nearest branch of the requested `:commit`.
It's plenty fast on smaller repositories.
On larger repositories like nixpkgs, however, this can easily take 2-3
seconds on a modern machine on a NVMe.
For context, at the time of writing, nixpkgs has over 650k commits and
roughly 250 branches.
`BranchName` is used once in the whole view:
The cherry-pick target branch default selection.
And I believe that's a logic error, which is why this patch is so small.
The nearest branch of a given commit will always be a branch the commit
is already part of. The branch you most likely *don't* want to
cherry-pick to.
Sure, one can technically cherry-pick a commit onto the same branch, but
that simply results in an empty commit.
I don't believe this is intended and even less so worth the compute.
Instead, the cherry-pick branch selection suggestion now always uses
the default branch, which used to be the fallback.
If a user wants to know which branches contain the given commit,
`load-branches-and-tags` exists and should be used instead.
Also, to add insult to injury, `BranchName` was calculated for both
logged-in and not logged-in users, despite its only consumer, the
cherry-pick operation, only being rendered when a given user has
write/commit permissions.
But this isn't particularly surprising, given this happens a lot in
Forgejo's codebase.
- Adjust the counting of the number of lines of a file to match the
amount of rendered lines. This simply means that a file with the content
of `a\n` will be shown as having `1 line` rather than `2 lines`. This
matches with the amount of lines that are being rendered (the last empty
line is never rendered) and matches more with the expecation of the
user (a trailing EOL is a technical detail).
- In the case there's no EOL, the reason why it was counting
'incorrectly' was to show if there was a trailing EOL or not, but now
text is shown to tell the user this.
- Integration test added.
- ResolvesCodeberg/Community#1612
An instance-wide actor is required for outgoing signed requests that are
done on behalf of the instance, rather than on behalf of other actors.
Such things include updating profile information, or fetching public
keys.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
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>
Add an optional `order_by` parameter to the `user.ListMyRepos`
handler (which handles the `/api/v1/user/repos` route), allowing a user
to sort repos by name (the default), id, or size.
The latter will be useful later for figuring out which repos use most
space, which repos eat most into a user's quota.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
- add package counter to repo/user/org overview pages
- add go unit tests for repo/user has/count packages
- add many more unit tests for packages model
- fix error for non-existing packages in DeletePackageByID and SetRepositoryLink
Document return type for the endpoints that fetch specific files from a
repository. This allows the swagger generated code to read the returned
data.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit bae87dfb0958e6a2920c905e51c2a026b7b71ca6)
- In the spirit of #4635
- Notify the owner when their account is getting enrolled into TOTP. The
message is changed according if they have security keys or not.
- Integration test added.
- Regression of #4635
- The authentication mails weren't being sent with links to the
instance, because the the wrong variable was used in the mail footer.
`$.AppUrl` should've been `AppUrl`.
- Unit test added.
Otto
