Backport #30406
Fix #30378
(cherry picked from commit 55990ebf9240fced8c58491521fc21bf4a4d8f23)
Conflicts:
services/user/delete.go
trivial context conflict because of `[MODERATION] User blocking`
Backport #30245 by @KN4CK3R
Fixes #30235
If the key id "front" byte has a single digit, `%X` is missing the 0
prefix.
` 38D1A3EADDBEA9C` instead of
`038D1A3EADDBEA9C`
When using the `IssuerFingerprint` slice `%X` is enough but I changed it
to `%016X` too to be consistent.
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
(cherry picked from commit 935bfe6445f55f1011782eb93492dc55839b2d16)
Backport #30061 by @wolfogre
Help #29999, or its tests cannot pass.
Also, add some comments to clarify the usage of `TxContext`.
I don't check all usages of `TxContext` because there are too many
(almost 140+). It's a better idea to replace them with `WithTx` instead
of checking them one by one. However, that may be another refactoring
PR.
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
(cherry picked from commit 78795dd5663b7d8df4620bd50c74a7d71606f1d2)
Backport #30013 by @DrMaxNix
This PR adds `setting.Service.DefaultOrgMemberVisible` value to dataset
of user when the initial org creator is being added to the created org.
Fixes #30012.
Co-authored-by: DrMaxNix <mail@drmaxnix.de>
(cherry picked from commit e321b8a849087d736a96275d5960f9b1446c95ba)
- `user_model.DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses` related code was added in
Gogs as part to delete inactive users, however since then the related
code to delete users has changed and this code now already delete email
addresses of the user, it's therefore not needed anymore to
`DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses`.
- The call to `DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses` can actually cause issues.
As the associated user might not have been deleted, because it
was not older than the specified `olderThan` argument. Therefore causing
a database inconsistency and lead to internal server errors if the user
tries to activate their account.
- Adds unit test to verify correct behavior (fails without this patch).
Backport #29863 by @lng2020
Sometimes the column name is case-sensitive and it may cause 500.
Co-authored-by: Nanguan Lin <nanguanlin6@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit c044510ca8bed67cb2d50ba741b3d0b520aa3c43)
Backport of #2658
Regression of #2507, which switched the HEAD from `pr.GetGitRefName()`
to `pr.HeadCommitID` but it had to be `prInfo.HeadCommitID`. Resolves #2656
I was able to reproduce this locally with _some_ pull requests, haven't
been able to get a reproducer trough integration testing.
(cherry picked from commit a4cc37b46a)
Backport #29430
Thanks to inferenceus : some sort orders on the "explore/users" page
could list users by their lastlogintime/updatetime.
It leaks user's activity unintentionally. This PR makes that page only
use "supported" sort orders.
Removing the "sort orders" could also be a good solution, while IMO at
the moment keeping the "create time" and "name" orders is also fine, in
case some users would like to find a target user in the search result,
the "sort order" might help.
(cherry picked from commit 2b059f493e46b8b0fb52492623e36a8375cb5fbb)
Backport #29531 by wxiaoguang
Add two "HTMLURL" methods for PackageDescriptor.
And rename "FullWebLink" to "VersionWebLink"
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 8723389028bcb5e96359fca61efd7d6da0d6af99)
- Backport of #2518
- The content history table contains the content history of issues and
comments. For issues they are saved with an comment id of zero.
- If you want to check if the issue has an content history, it should
take into account that SQL has `comment_id = 0`, as it otherwise could
return incorrect results when for example the issue already has an
comment that has an content history.
- Fix the code of `HasIssueContentHistory` to take this into account, it
relied on XORM to generate the SQL from the non-default values of the
struct, this wouldn't generate the `comment_id = 0` SQL as `0` is the
default value of an integer.
- Remove an unncessary log (it's not the responsibility of `models`
code to do logging).
- Adds unit test.
- Resolves #2513
(cherry picked from commit 331fa44956)
- Backport of #2507
- The CODEOWNER feature relies on the changed files to determine which
reviewers should be added according to the `CODEOWNER` file.
- The current approach was to 'diff' between the base and head branch,
which seems logical but fail in practice when the pull request is out of
date with the base branch. Therefore it should instead diff between the
head branch and the merge base of the head and base branch, so only the
actual affected files by the pull requests are used, the same approach
is used by the diff of an unmerged pull request.
- Add integration testing (for the feature as well).
- Resolves #2458
(cherry picked from commit fb2795b5bb)
Backport #28551
RequestReview get deleted on review.
So we don't have to try to load them on comments.
(cherry picked from commit 0ac3186267b717bce7076ef44f883df7720d7a2d)
Follow-up of #2282 and #2296 (which tried to address #2278)
One of the issue with the previous PR is that when a conversation on the Files tab was marked as "resolved", it would fetch all the comments for that line (even the outdated ones, which should not be shown on this page - except when explicitly activated).
To properly fix this, I have changed `FetchCodeCommentsByLine` to `FetchCodeConversation`. Its role is to fetch all comments related to a given (review, path, line) and reverted my changes in the template (which were based on a misunderstanding).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2306
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Backport #29006 by @lunny
This reverts commit fa8c3beb26. #28546
Because it seems performance become worse.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit a0b9bd2feb)
Backport #28817 by @lunny
Fix #22066
# Purpose
This PR fix the releases will be deleted when mirror repository sync the
tags.
# The problem
In the previous implementation of #19125. All releases record in
databases of one mirror repository will be deleted before sync.
Ref:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/19125/files#diff-2aa04998a791c30e5a02b49a97c07fcd93d50e8b31640ce2ddb1afeebf605d02R481
# The Pros
This PR introduced a new method which will load all releases from
databases and all tags on git data into memory. And detect which tags
needs to be inserted, which tags need to be updated or deleted. Only
tags releases(IsTag=true) which are not included in git data will be
deleted, only tags which sha1 changed will be updated. So it will not
delete any real releases include drafts.
# The Cons
The drawback is the memory usage will be higher than before if there are
many tags on this repository. This PR defined a special release struct
to reduce columns loaded from database to memory.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 2048363f9e)
Backport of #2143
This solves two bugs. One bug is that due to the JOIN with the
`forgejo_blocked_users` table, duplicated users were generated if a user
had more than one user blocked, this lead to receiving more than one
entry in the actions table. The other bug is that if a user blocked more
than one user, it would still receive a action entry by a
blocked user, because the SQL query would not exclude the other
duplicated users that was generated by the JOIN.
The new solution is somewhat non-optimal in my eyes, but it's better
than rewriting the query to become a potential perfomance blocker (usage
of WHERE IN, which cannot be rewritten to a JOIN). It simply removes the
watchers after it was retrieved by the SQL query.
(cherry picked from commit c63c00b39b)
Backport #26745
Fixes #26548
This PR refactors the rendering of markup links. The old code uses
`strings.Replace` to change some urls while the new code uses more
context to decide which link should be generated.
The added tests should ensure the same output for the old and new
behaviour (besides the bug).
We may need to refactor the rendering a bit more to make it clear how
the different helper methods render the input string. There are lots of
options (resolve links / images / mentions / git hashes / emojis / ...)
but you don't really know what helper uses which options. For example,
we currently support images in the user description which should not be
allowed I think:
<details>
<summary>Profile</summary>
https://try.gitea.io/KN4CK3R
</details>
(cherry picked from commit 022552d5b6)
Backport #28590 by @lunny
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28547#issuecomment-1867740842
Since https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2383 merged, xorm now supports
UPDATE JOIN.
To keep consistent from different databases, xorm use
`engine.Join().Update`, but the actural generated SQL are different
between different databases.
For MySQL, it's `UPDATE talbe1 JOIN table2 ON join_conditions SET xxx
Where xxx`.
For MSSQL, it's `UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM TABLE1, TABLE2 WHERE
join_conditions`.
For SQLITE per https://www.sqlite.org/lang_update.html, sqlite support
`UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM table2 WHERE join conditions` from
3.33.0(2020-8-14).
POSTGRES is the same as SQLITE.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 18da3f8483)
- The current architecture is inherently insecure, because you can
construct the 'secret' cookie value with values that are available in
the database. Thus provides zero protection when a database is
dumped/leaked.
- This patch implements a new architecture that's inspired from: [Paragonie Initiative](https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies).
- Integration testing is added to ensure the new mechanism works.
- Removes a setting, because it's not used anymore.
(cherry picked from commit eff097448b)
[GITEA] rework long-term authentication (squash) add migration
Reminder: the migration is run via integration tests as explained
in the commit "[DB] run all Forgejo migrations in integration tests"
(cherry picked from commit 4accf7443c)
(cherry picked from commit 99d06e344ebc3b50bafb2ac4473dd95f057d1ddc)
(cherry picked from commit d8bc98a8f0)
(cherry picked from commit 6404845df9)
(cherry picked from commit 72bdd4f3b9)
(cherry picked from commit 4b01bb0ce8)
(cherry picked from commit c26ac31816)
(cherry picked from commit 8d2dab94a6)
Conflicts:
routers/web/auth/auth.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2158
Backport #28552 by @6543
can we please PLEAS PLEASE only use raw SQL statements if it is relay
needed!!!
source is https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28544 (before
refactoring)
Co-authored-by: 6543 <m.huber@kithara.com>
(cherry picked from commit 16263af971)
Backport #28421 by wxiaoguang
Refactor the code and add tests, keep the old logic.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 6cbb6f303a)
Backport #28392 by @nekrondev
Windows-based shells will add a CRLF when piping the token into
ssh-keygen command resulting in
verification error. This resolves #21527.
Co-authored-by: nekrondev <heiko@noordsee.de>
Co-authored-by: Heiko Besemann <heiko.besemann@qbeyond.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit b47482d58e)
Fix #28056
Backport #28361
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.
(cherry picked from commit 87db4a47c8)
Backport #28243
Setting the same value should not trigger DuplicateKey error, and the
"version" should be increased
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit ea9f5a57e4)
Closes #1837.
The differences in dates can be explained by commit e19b9653ea, which
changed the order in which "created_date" and "updated_date" are
considered.
- Backport https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1849
- Hook Forgejo's `EnsureUpToDate` to Gitea's `EnsureUpToDate`, such that
the Forgejo migrations are also being checked to be up to date.
- I'm not sure how I missed this and if this has caused any problems,
but due to the lack of any open issue about it it seems to not be a big
problem.
(cherry picked from commit 6c65b6dcf6)
backport #28213
This PR will fix some missed checks for private repositories' data on
web routes and API routes.
(cherry picked from commit bc3d8bff73)
