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 20b5669269)
(cherry picked from commit 1574643a6a)
Update semantic version according to specification
(cherry picked from commit 22510f4130)
Mise à jour de 'Makefile'
(cherry picked from commit c3d85d8409)
(cherry picked from commit 5ea2309851)
(cherry picked from commit ec5217b9d1)
(cherry picked from commit 14f08e364b)
(cherry picked from commit b4465c67b8)
[API] [SEMVER] replace number with version
(cherry picked from commit fba48e6497)
(cherry picked from commit 532ec5d878)
[API] [SEMVER] [v1.20] less is replaced by css
(cherry picked from commit 01ca3a4f42)
(cherry picked from commit 1d928c3ab2)
(cherry picked from commit a39dc804cd)
Conflicts:
webpack.config.js
(cherry picked from commit adc68578b3)
(cherry picked from commit 9b8d98475f)
(cherry picked from commit 2516103974)
(cherry picked from commit 18e6287963)
(cherry picked from commit e9694e67ab)
(cherry picked from commit a9763edaf0)
(cherry picked from commit e2b550f4fb)
(cherry picked from commit 2edac36701)
[API] Forgejo API /api/forgejo/v1 (squash)
Update semver as v1.20 is entering release candidate mode
(cherry picked from commit 4995098ec3)
(cherry picked from commit 578ccfdd27)
(cherry picked from commit 1bf6ac0952)
(cherry picked from commit 2fe16b2bfe)
(cherry picked from commit 7cd9d027ee)
(cherry picked from commit eaed4be2ae)
(cherry picked from commit cc94f3115f)
(cherry picked from commit d7a77e35cc)
(cherry picked from commit cd8eb68ab7)
(cherry picked from commit 68487ac95f)
(cherry picked from commit 616dceb565)
(cherry picked from commit 545fe5975b)
(cherry picked from commit c042cf8eda)
(cherry picked from commit ae5e5a7468)
(cherry picked from commit 8034ef5fa2)
(cherry picked from commit aaf0293034)
(cherry picked from commit daafa8ce58)
(cherry picked from commit 7ca3681d3e)
(cherry picked from commit 39f72cba71)
(cherry picked from commit 60a5917130)
(cherry picked from commit 4853bd9e16)
[API] Move forgejo api file (squash)
- Move the file to accommodate faa28b5a44
(cherry picked from commit bce89351d2)
(cherry picked from commit 11ae7f6e85)
(cherry picked from commit 25e96cfcb2)
(cherry picked from commit 6d8d19b391)
(cherry picked from commit 5afc5c454b)
(cherry picked from commit 86d07b4c24)
(cherry picked from commit e54d869fda)
Fix#28056
This PR will check whether the repo has zero branch when pushing a
branch. If that, it means this repository hasn't been synced.
The reason caused that is after user upgrade from v1.20 -> v1.21, he
just push branches without visit the repository user interface. Because
all repositories routers will check whether a branches sync is necessary
but push has not such check.
For every repository, it has two states, synced or not synced. If there
is zero branch for a repository, then it will be assumed as non-sync
state. Otherwise, it's synced state. So if we think it's synced, we just
need to update branch/insert new branch. Otherwise do a full sync. So
that, for every push, there will be almost no extra load added. It's
high performance than yours.
For the implementation, we in fact will try to update the branch first,
if updated success with affect records > 0, then all are done. Because
that means the branch has been in the database. If no record is
affected, that means the branch does not exist in database. So there are
two possibilities. One is this is a new branch, then we just need to
insert the record. Another is the branches haven't been synced, then we
need to sync all the branches into database.
It will fix#28268 .
<img width="1313" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/cb1e07d5-7a12-4691-a054-8278ba255bfc">
<img width="1318" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/4fd60820-97f1-4c2c-a233-d3671a5039e9">
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
But need to give up some features:
<img width="1312" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/281c0d51-0e7d-473f-bbed-216e2f645610">
However, such abandonment may fix#28055 .
## Backgroud
When the user switches the dashboard context to an org, it means they
want to search issues in the repos that belong to the org. However, when
they switch to themselves, it means all repos they can access because
they may have created an issue in a public repo that they don't own.
<img width="286" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/182dcd5b-1c20-4725-93af-96e8dfae5b97">
It's a confusing design. Think about this: What does "In your
repositories" mean when the user switches to an org? Repos belong to the
user or the org?
Whatever, it has been broken by #26012 and its following PRs. After the
PR, it searches for issues in repos that the dashboard context user owns
or has been explicitly granted access to, so it causes #28268.
## How to fix it
It's not really difficult to fix it. Just extend the repo scope to
search issues when the dashboard context user is the doer. Since the
user may create issues or be mentioned in any public repo, we can just
set `AllPublic` to true, which is already supported by indexers. The DB
condition will also support it in this PR.
But the real difficulty is how to count the search results grouped by
repos. It's something like "search issues with this keyword and those
filters, and return the total number and the top results. **Then, group
all of them by repo and return the counts of each group.**"
<img width="314" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/5206eb20-f8f5-49b9-b45a-1be2fcf679f4">
Before #26012, it was being done in the DB, but it caused the results to
be incomplete (see the description of #26012).
And to keep this, #26012 implement it in an inefficient way, just count
the issues by repo one by one, so it cannot work when `AllPublic` is
true because it's almost impossible to do this for all public repos.
1bfcdeef4c/modules/indexer/issues/indexer.go (L318-L338)
## Give up unnecessary features
We may can resovle `TODO: use "group by" of the indexer engines to
implement it`, I'm sure it can be done with Elasticsearch, but IIRC,
Bleve and Meilisearch don't support "group by".
And the real question is, does it worth it? Why should we need to know
the counts grouped by repos?
Let me show you my search dashboard on gitea.com.
<img width="1304" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/2bca2d46-6c71-4de1-94cb-0c9af27c62ff">
I never think the long repo list helps anything.
And if we agree to abandon it, things will be much easier. That is this
PR.
## TODO
I know it's important to filter by repos when searching issues. However,
it shouldn't be the way we have it now. It could be implemented like
this.
<img width="1316" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/99ee5f21-cbb5-4dfe-914d-cb796cb79fbe">
The indexers support it well now, but it requires some frontend work,
which I'm not good at. So, I think someone could help do that in another
PR and merge this one to fix the bug first.
Or please block this PR and help to complete it.
Finally, "Switch dashboard context" is also a design that needs
improvement. In my opinion, it can be accomplished by adding filtering
conditions instead of "switching".
This fixes a regression from #25859
If a tag has no Release, Gitea will show a Link to create a Release for
the Tag if the User has the Permission to do this, but the variable to
indicate that is no longer set.
Used here:
1bfcdeef4c/templates/repo/tag/list.tmpl (L39-L41)
Fix#25473
Although there was `m.Post("/login/oauth/access_token", CorsHandler()...`,
it never really worked, because it still lacks the "OPTIONS" handler.
Fixes#27819
We have support for two factor logins with the normal web login and with
basic auth. For basic auth the two factor check was implemented at three
different places and you need to know that this check is necessary. This
PR moves the check into the basic auth itself.
The steps to reproduce it.
First, create a new oauth2 source.
Then, a user login with this oauth2 source.
Disable the oauth2 source.
Visit users -> settings -> security, 500 will be displayed.
This is because this page only load active Oauth2 sources but not all
Oauth2 sources.
Fix nil access for inactive auth sources.
> Render failed, failed to render template:
user/settings/security/security, error: template error:
builtin(static):user/settings/security/accountlinks:32:20 : executing
"user/settings/security/accountlinks" at <$providerData.IconHTML>: nil
pointer evaluating oauth2.Provider.IconHTML
Code tries to access the auth source of an `ExternalLoginUser` but the
list contains only the active auth sources.
After many refactoring PRs for the "locale" and "template context
function", now the ".locale" is not needed for web templates any more.
This PR does a clean up for:
1. Remove `ctx.Data["locale"]` for web context.
2. Use `ctx.Locale` in `500.tmpl`, for consistency.
3. Add a test check for `500 page` locale usage.
4. Remove the `Str2html` and `DotEscape` from mail template context
data, they are copy&paste errors introduced by #19169 and #16200 . These
functions are template functions (provided by the common renderer), but
not template data variables.
5. Make email `SendAsync` function mockable (I was planning to add more
tests but it would make this PR much too complex, so the tests could be
done in another PR)
From issue https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/27314
When act_runner in `host` mode on Windows. `upload_artifact@v3` actions
use `path.join` to generate `itemPath` params when uploading artifact
chunk. `itemPath` is encoded as `${artifact_name}\${artifact_path}`.
<del>It's twice query escaped from ${artifact_name}/${artifact_path}
that joined by Windows slash \.</del>
**So we need convert Windows slash to linux**.
In https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/27314, runner shows logs
from `upload_artifact@v3` like with `%255C`:
```
[artifact-cases/test-artifact-cases] | ::error::Unexpected response. Unable to upload chunk to http://192.168.31.230:3000/api/actions_pipeline/_apis/pipelines/workflows/6/artifacts/34d628a422db9367c869d3fb36be81f5/upload?itemPath=more-files%255Css.json
```
But in gitea server at the same time, But shows `%5C`
```
2023/10/27 19:29:51 ...eb/routing/logger.go:102:func1() [I] router: completed PUT /api/actions_pipeline/_apis/pipelines/workflows/6/artifacts/34d628a422db9367c869d3fb36be81f5/upload?itemPath=more-files%5Css.json for 192.168.31.230:55340, 400 Bad Request in 17.6ms @ <autogenerated>:1(actions.artifactRoutes.uploadArtifact-fm)
```
I found `%255C` is escaped by
`https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact/blob/main/dist/index.js#L2329`.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Currently this feature is only available to admins, but there is no
clear reason why. If a user can actually merge pull requests, then this
seems fine as well.
This is useful in situations where direct pushes to the repository are
commonly done by developers.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Hello there,
Cargo Index over HTTP is now prefered over git for package updates: we
should not force users who do not need the GIT repo to have the repo
created/updated on each publish (it can still be created in the packages
settings).
The current behavior when publishing is to check if the repo exist and
create it on the fly if not, then update it's content.
Cargo HTTP Index does not rely on the repo itself so this will be
useless for everyone not using the git protocol for cargo registry.
This PR only disable the creation on the fly of the repo when publishing
a crate.
This is linked to #26844 (error 500 when trying to publish a crate if
user is missing write access to the repo) because it's now optional.
---------
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
