- Forgejo has the option to delete users, in which all data except
issues and comments are removed, this makes sense in some cases where
users need to be removed cleanly but without removing their existing bug
reports or comments to an discussion. In the case of spammers, admins
have the option to enable purging, where comments are removed.
- Add issues to the list of things to be removed if purge is checked.
- No unit testing, as this gigantic function doesn't have one to begin
with.
- Add integration test.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1268
(cherry picked from commit 3ed381c758)
(cherry picked from commit 44d00650ce)
(cherry picked from commit 7f4da82779)
(cherry picked from commit d629314def)
Conflicts:
models/fixtures/issue.yml
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1508
(cherry picked from commit 794dcc218f)
(cherry picked from commit c433f2ecb6)
(cherry picked from commit bb23683f4b)
(cherry picked from commit 634c5604d4)
(cherry picked from commit 219073f5c5)
(cherry picked from commit 32893dbab1)
(cherry picked from commit 0ef40cfb5a)
(cherry picked from commit e535409cab3c276fd8db6b402f85934ef5127491)
Signed-off-by: cassiozareck <cassiomilczareck@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit a878adfe62)
Adding description and Forgejo SVG
(cherry picked from commit 13738c0380)
Undo reordering and tmpl redirection
(cherry picked from commit 9ae51c46f4)
(cherry picked from commit 70fffdc61d)
(cherry picked from commit c0ebfa9da3)
(cherry picked from commit 9922c92787)
(cherry picked from commit 00c0effbc7)
(cherry picked from commit e4c9525b13)
(cherry picked from commit 09d7b83211)
(cherry picked from commit bbcd5975c9)
(cherry picked from commit 55c70a0e18)
(cherry picked from commit 76596410c0)
(cherry picked from commit 1308043931)
(cherry picked from commit 919d6aedfe)
[FEAT] add Forgero Git Service (squash) more tests
Previously only Gitea service was being tested under self-hosted migrations. Since Forgejo is also self-hosted and in fact use the same downloader/migrator we can add to this suite another test that will do the same, migrating the same repository under the same local instance but for the Forgejo service (represented by 9)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1709
Co-authored-by: zareck <cassiomilczareck@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: zareck <cassiomilczareck@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 40a4b8f1a8)
(cherry picked from commit 3198b4a642)
(cherry picked from commit 4edda1f389)
Some translations are duplicated for the same package fields; it should
be possible to use the same approach. Checked packages to use the same
forms in templates.
1. Removed repeated translations for the same fields
2. Linked template files to the same translation fields
3. Added repository site link for nuget packages
* Show checkout instructions also when there is no permission to push,
for anyone who wants to locally test the changes.
* First checkout the branch exactly as is, without immediately having to
solve merge conflicts. Leave this to the merge step, since it's often
convenient to test a change without worrying about this.
* Use `git fetch -u`, so an existing local branch is updated when
re-testing the same pull request. But not the more risky `git fetch -f`
in to handle force pushes, as we don't want to accidentally overwrite
important local changes.
* Show different merge command depending on the chosen merge style,
interactively updated.
This PR will show the _noreply_ address in the privacy popup
_keep_email_private_popup_.
I had to look into the source code to figure out which E-Mail Adress I
had to use on gitea.com to hide it from public access.
According to the contribution guidelines I only updated the en-US
translation file.
Co-authored-by: Hakito <hakito@git.example.com>
Per the discussion on #22054, the flow for adding a new team member to
an org is not intuitive for new Gitea users.
The ideal solution would be to add a new button on the Org > Members
index view (see the screenshot mockup in the issue description).
However, this would require a refactor of the UX for the flow. The
current flow has an implicit context of which team within the org the
new member is being added to ('Owners' by default). From the Members
index, there is no implicit context; the flow would have to add a picker
for which team the new member should be added to.
So, as a stopgap, this change simply adds a button to the Teams index
page that performs the same action as clicking on the title of the team
(a behavior that is currently too obscure as indicated in the comments
on the issue). This should reduce support burden and serve as a decent
temporary measure until the Add Member flow is refactored.
---------
Co-authored-by: tomholford <tomholford@users.noreply.github.com>
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`.
This PR reduces the complexity of the system setting system.
It only needs one line to introduce a new option, and the option can be
used anywhere out-of-box.
It is still high-performant (and more performant) because the config
values are cached in the config system.
