- It's possible that the description of an `Regularlink` is `Text` and not
another `Regularlink`. Therefor if it's `Text`, convert it to an
`Regularlink` trough the 'old' behavior (pass it trough `org.String` and
trim `file:` prefix).
- Adds unit tests.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1430
(cherry picked from commit 385fc6ee6b)
Previously, the repo wiki was hardcoded to use `master` as its branch,
this change makes it possible to use `main` (or something else, governed
by `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`, a setting that already exists and
defaults to `main`).
The way it is done is that a new column is added to the `repository`
table: `wiki_branch`. The migration will make existing repositories
default to `master`, for compatibility's sake, even if they don't have a
Wiki (because it's easier to do that). Newly created repositories will
default to `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH` instead.
The Wiki service was updated to use the branch name stored in the
database, and fall back to the default if it is empty.
Old repositories with Wikis using the older `master` branch will have
the option to do a one-time transition to `main`, available via the
repository settings in the "Danger Zone". This option will only be
available for repositories that have the internal wiki enabled, it is
not empty, and the wiki branch is not `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`.
When migrating a repository with a Wiki, Forgejo will use the same
branch name for the wiki as the source repository did. If that's not the
same as the default, the option to normalize it will be available after
the migration's done.
Additionally, the `/api/v1/{owner}/{repo}` endpoint was updated: it will
now include the wiki branch name in `GET` requests, and allow changing
the wiki branch via `PATCH`.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit d87c526d2a)
So the caller can check log events at the desired level instead of
being limited to the default level log.INFO
(cherry picked from commit 2fbf5f9555)
(cherry picked from commit e2137a3147)
- Remove non base64-ed version of JWT secret generation. Because all
occurences need the Base64 version.
(cherry picked from commit 6a6b5a31a8)
(cherry picked from commit 066b8ca6b4)
handleSchedules() is called every time an event is received and will
check the content of the main branch to (re)create scheduled events.
There is no reason why intput.Event will be relevant when the schedule
workflow runs.
(cherry picked from commit 9a712bb276)
(cherry picked from commit 41af36da81)
(cherry picked from commit bb83604fa2)
(cherry picked from commit 65e4503a7a)
(cherry picked from commit e562b6f7a0)
(cherry picked from commit aca2ae2390)
(cherry picked from commit bf2b5ea507)
Recognise the `linguist-documentation` and `linguist-detectable`
attributes in `.gitattributes` files, and use them in
`GetLanguageStats()` to make a decision whether to include a particular
file in the stats or not.
This allows one more control over which files in their repositories
contribute toward the language statistics, so that for a project that is
mostly documentation, the language stats can reflect that.
Fixes #1672.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 6d4e02fe5f)
(cherry picked from commit ee1ead8189)
(cherry picked from commit 2dbec730e8)
Instead of repeating the tests that verify the ID of a comment
is related to the repository of the API endpoint, add the middleware
function commentAssignment() to assign ctx.Comment if the ID of the
comment is verified to be related to the repository.
There already are integration tests for cases of potential unrelated
comment IDs that cover some of the modified endpoints which covers the
commentAssignment() function logic.
* TestAPICommentReactions - GetIssueCommentReactions
* TestAPICommentReactions - PostIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPICommentReactions - DeleteIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPIEditComment - EditIssueComment
* TestAPIDeleteComment - DeleteIssueComment
* TestAPIGetCommentAttachment - GetIssueCommentAttachment
The other modified endpoints do not have tests to verify cases of
potential unrelated comment IDs. They no longer need to because they
no longer implement the logic to enforce this. They however all have
integration tests that verify the commentAssignment() they now rely on
does not introduce a regression.
* TestAPIGetComment - GetIssueComment
* TestAPIListCommentAttachments - ListIssueCommentAttachments
* TestAPICreateCommentAttachment - CreateIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIEditCommentAttachment - EditIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIDeleteCommentAttachment - DeleteIssueCommentAttachment
(cherry picked from commit d414376d74)
(cherry picked from commit 09db07aeae)
(cherry picked from commit f44830c3cb)
Conflicts:
modules/context/api.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2249
(cherry picked from commit 9d1bf7be15)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
Expose the repository flags feature over the API, so the flags can be
managed by a site administrator without using the web API.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit bac9f0225d)
(cherry picked from commit e7f5c1ba14)
(cherry picked from commit 95d9fe19cf)
(cherry picked from commit 7fc51991e4)
This implements "repository flags", a way for instance administrators to
assign custom flags to repositories. The idea is that custom templates
can look at these flags, and display banners based on them, Forgejo does
not provide anything built on top of it, just the foundation. The
feature is optional, and disabled by default. To enable it, set
`[repository].ENABLE_FLAGS = true`.
On the UI side, instance administrators will see a new "Manage flags"
tab on repositories, and a list of enabled tags (if any) on the
repository home page. The "Manage flags" page allows them to remove
existing flags, or add any new ones that are listed in
`[repository].SETTABLE_FLAGS`.
The model does not enforce that only the `SETTABLE_FLAGS` are present.
If the setting is changed, old flags may remain present in the database,
and anything that uses them, will still work. The repository flag
management page will allow an instance administrator to remove them, but
not set them, once removed.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit ba735ce222)
(cherry picked from commit f09f6e029b)
(cherry picked from commit 2f8b041489)
(cherry picked from commit d3186ee5f4)
