Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen
only in one place.
---
1. An event happens
2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is
added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook
type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request
This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3.
This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain.
Updated webhook flow with this PR:
1. An event happens
2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the
webhook type) to make an HTTP request
So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3)
which should be much more robust.
- the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the
pre-processed body was stored)
- to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a
`payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been
pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event)
So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an
http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in
multiple places, like currently).
Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task
queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for
instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook.
As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be
substantially smaller:
- no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go`
- minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook
to the map)
- no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this
refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
(cherry picked from commit 26653b196bd1d15c532af41f60351596dd4330bd)
Conflicts:
services/webhook/deliver_test.go
trivial context conflict
Fix #29000
Fix #28685
Fix #18568
Related: #27497
And by the way fix #24036, add a Cancel button there (one line)
(cherry picked from commit 5cddab4f74bbb307ddf13e458c7ac22f93b9283a)
The tests on migration tests failed but CI reports successfully
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/actions/runs/7364373807/job/20044685969#step:8:141
This PR will fix the bug on migration v283 and also the CI hidden
behaviour.
The reason is on the Makefile
`GITEA_ROOT="$(CURDIR)" GITEA_CONF=tests/mysql.ini $(GO) test
$(GOTESTFLAGS) -tags='$(TEST_TAGS)' $(MIGRATE_TEST_PACKAGES)` will
return the error exit code.
But
`for pkg in $(shell $(GO) list
code.gitea.io/gitea/models/migrations/...); do \
GITEA_ROOT="$(CURDIR)" GITEA_CONF=tests/mysql.ini $(GO) test
$(GOTESTFLAGS) -tags '$(TEST_TAGS)' $$pkg; \
done`
will not work.
This also fix #29602
(cherry picked from commit 45277486c2c6213b7766b1da708a991cdb1f3565)
Conflicts:
.github/workflows/pull-db-tests.yml
Makefile
models/migrations/v1_22/v283.go
models/migrations/v1_22/v286_test.go
models/migrations/v1_22/v287_test.go
already in Forgejo for the Makefile & CI logic but Gitea changes
otherwise rule
- This also means that if one of the test fails, it will actually
propagate to make and subsequently fail the test.
- Remove the 'delete duplicates issue users' code, I checked this
against my local development database (which contains quite bizarre
cases, even some that Forgejo does not like), my local instance database
and against Codeberg production and they all yielded no results to this
query, so I'm removing it thus resolving the error that the delete code
was not compatible with Mysql.
- Sync all tables that are requires by the migration in the test.
- Resolves #2206
(cherry picked from commit 8e02be7e89)
(cherry picked from commit 006f064416)
Fixes #27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Closes #27455
> The mechanism responsible for long-term authentication (the 'remember
me' cookie) uses a weak construction technique. It will hash the user's
hashed password and the rands value; it will then call the secure cookie
code, which will encrypt the user's name with the computed hash. If one
were able to dump the database, they could extract those two values to
rebuild that cookie and impersonate a user. That vulnerability exists
from the date the dump was obtained until a user changed their password.
>
> To fix this security issue, the cookie could be created and verified
using a different technique such as the one explained at
https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies.
The PR removes the now obsolete setting `COOKIE_USERNAME`.
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/27097:
- `gitea` theme is renamed to `gitea-light`
- `arc-green` theme is renamed to `gitea-dark`
- `auto` theme is renamed to `gitea-auto`
I put both themes in separate CSS files, removing all colors from the
base CSS. Existing users will be migrated to the new theme names. The
dark theme recolor will follow in a separate PR.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
1. If there are existing custom themes with the names `gitea-light` or
`gitea-dark`, rename them before this upgrade and update the `theme`
column in the `user` table for each affected user.
2. The theme in `<html>` has moved from `class="theme-name"` to
`data-theme="name"`, existing customizations that depend on should be
updated.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
