Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25130
The old code uses `$(this).next()` to get `dismiss-review-modal`.
At first, it will get `$(#dismiss-review-modal)`, but the next time it
will get `$(#dismiss-review-modal).next();`
and then `$(#dismiss-review-modal).next().next();`.
Because div `dismiss-review-modal` will be removed when
`dismiss-review-btn` clicked.
Maybe the right usage is adding `show-modal` class and `data-modal`
attribute.
That ID is a "copy&paste" error, it conflicts with the
`initRepoMigrationStatusChecker` logic, which is the right function for
a real `#repo_migrating` element. That wrong ID causes incorrect page
navigation after installation.
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)
Follow:
* #22697
There are some bugs in #22697:
* https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22697#issuecomment-1577957966
* the webauthn failure message is never shown and causes console error
* The `document.getElementById('register-button')` and
`document.getElementById('login-button')` is wrong
* there is no such element in code
* it causes JS error when a browser doesn't provide webauthn
* the end user can't see the real error message
These bugs are fixed in this PR.
Other changes:
* Use simple HTML/CSS layouts, no need to use too many `gt-` patches
* Make the webauthn page have correct "page-content" layout
* The "data-webauthn-error-msg" elements are only used to provide locale
texts, so move them into a single "gt-hidden", then no need to repeat a
lot of "gt-hidden" in code
* The `{{.CsrfTokenHtml}}` is a no-op because there is no form
* Many `hideElem('#webauthn-error')` in code is no-op because the
`webauthn-error` already has "gt-hidden" by default
* Make the tests for "URLEncodedBase64" really test with concrete cases.
Screenshots:
* Error message when webauthn fails (before, there is no error message):
<details>
</details>
* Error message when webauthn is unavailable
<details>
</details>
There were several issues with the WebAuthn registration and testing
code and the style
was very old javascript with jquery callbacks.
This PR uses async and fetch to replace the JQuery code.
Ref #22651
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
---------
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
## 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>
Before, Gitea shows the database table stats on the `admin dashboard`
page.
It has some problems:
* `count(*)` is quite heavy. If tables have many records, this blocks
loading the admin page blocks for a long time
* Some users had even reported issues that they can't visit their admin
page because this page causes blocking or `50x error (reverse proxy
timeout)`
* The `actions` stat is not useful. The table is simply too large. Does
it really matter if it contains 1,000,000 rows or 9,999,999 rows?
* The translation `admin.dashboard.statistic_info` is difficult to
maintain.
So, this PR uses a separate page to show the stats and removes the
`actions` stat.
## ⚠️ BREAKING
The `actions` Prometheus metrics collector has been removed for the
reasons mentioned beforehand.
Please do not rely on its output anymore.
Feel free to close this if there isn't interest.
The tree view looks amazing, and all of our users are really enjoying it
(major kudos to developers!), but only IF I tell them it exists!
Essentially, the file tree view as it is effectively undiscoverable.
This PR changes the default state for the tree view to open, which
should significantly help with discoverability.
An alternative could be to reserve more horizontal space, as a typical
accordion panel would look (eg. VS Code), eg.
It's been disabled by default since 1.17
(https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/18914), and it never really
delivered any benefit except being another cache layer that has its own
unsolved invalidation issues. HTTP cache works, we don't need two cache
layers at the browser for assets.
## ⚠️ BREAKING
You can remove the config `[ui].USE_SERVICE_WORKER` from your `app.ini`
now.
This addressees some things from #24406 that came up after the PR was
merged. Mostly from @delvh.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
The admin config page has been broken for many many times, a little
refactoring would make this page panic.
So, add a test for it, and add another test to cover the 500 error page.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.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
As discussed in
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/24953#issuecomment-1565630156.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
1. The `ui.THEME_COLOR_META_TAG` setting has been removed. If you still
need to set the `theme-color` meta tag, add it via
`$GITEA_CUSTOM/templates/custom/header.tmpl` instead.
2. The non-standard `default-theme` meta-tag added in
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/13809 has been removed. Third
party code that needs to obtain the currently loaded theme should use
the `theme-<name>` class on the `<html>` node instead, which reflect the
currently active theme.
The 500 page was not loading theme CSS, so always appeared in light
theme. This extracts the stylesheets into a shared template used by all
pages.
<img width="1262" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/115237/72222b8d-a523-40d0-aa91-b9db32e5625d">
Small related rant: I think there should only be one `<head>` in all of
the templates, but I see it was deliberatly done that the 500 page has
its own `<head>` because "it should only depend the minimal template
functions", but I disagree because we are missing a lot of things that
are in the regular `<head>`.
Don't really know a better name for this. I've gone through some Forms
and added missing HTML attributes (mostly `maxlength`). I tried to fill
the Forms with dummy Data and see if Gitea throws a Error (e.g. maximum
length). If yes, I added the missing HTML attribute.
While working on this, I discovered that the Form to add OAuth2 Apps
just silently fails when filled with invalid data, so I fixed that too.
The Repolist contains the Number of Stars and Forks. Now these Numbers
are a Link to the corresponding pages of the Repo.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves#2175.
## Screenshots
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
We can reuse the recently created subtemplate here. I also checked the
whole templates for similar constructs, these appear to be the only one.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
- Replace `<table>` with flexbox
- Add issue modification time and issue number
- Remove big title
- Replace tabs with menu items
- Add clicked item deletion on back button cache restoration
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/16321
Provided a webhook trigger for requesting someone to review the Pull
Request.
Some modifications have been made to the returned `PullRequestPayload`
based on the GitHub webhook settings, including:
- add a description of the current reviewer object as
`RequestedReviewer` .
- setting the action to either **review_requested** or
**review_request_removed** based on the operation.
- adding the `RequestedReviewers` field to the issues_model.PullRequest.
This field will be loaded into the PullRequest through
`LoadRequestedReviewers()` when `ToAPIPullRequest` is called.
After the Pull Request is merged, I will supplement the relevant
documentation.
