## Overview
Hi all, I'm a first-time contributor to Forgejo. I was looking for something interesting to contribute and the first thing that caught my attention was https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/6043, a request for an enhancement to include "issue previews" when publishing links to social media platforms. As a bit of background, the way these platforms work is that they search for meta tags in the posted link's content, and if they find a meta `og:image` (along with other meta tags) they'll pull the image to include in the social media post. Forgejo currently provides an `og:image` tag but it just renders the repository or repository-owner's avatar.
This PR will render `og:image` for an issue or PR into a link to `{...}/summary-card`, which is a dynamically generated image that contains a summary of the issue.
## Design Notes
### Rendering / Rasterization
The tricky part of solving this problem is rendering an image that combines some text, some images, and some layout elements. To address this, I've created a `card` module which allows for a handful of operations:
- Create a new rendered image (a "Card")
- Add a margin to a card
- Split the card, horizontally or vertically, into two pieces with a proportional layout (eg. 70%/30%, as desired), each of which are "Cards" that render into the same root image
- Render text into a card, with line-wrapping and text-alignment capabilities
- Render an image onto a card
- Fetches an external image as safely as possible (for server-side fetch of Gravatar, etc.)
The card module can be reused to create `og:image` summary cards for any object in the future, although obviously it's capabilities are limited. The current implementation is on issues/PRs.
I considered a few alternative approaches before taking this approach, and here's why I rejected those options:
- Provide the summary card as an SVG object which could be rendered much more easily with a template file -- however, support for SVG isn't defined as positive for OpenGraph, and a quick look through some existing implementations suggest that it is not widely supported, if at all
- Rendering as HTML/CSS, or SVG, and then using an external tool to convert into a PNG (or other static) image -- this would be much nicer and easier to implement, but would require tying in some very heavy-weight dependencies
- Rendering using a more sophisticated graphics library, eg. cairo -- also would be nicer and easier to implement, but again a heavy dependency for a small functionality
As a result of the limited capabilities of the new card module, summary cards don't have icons on them (which would require SVG rasterization) or pretty status badges with colors and rounded rects. In the future if better drawing capabilities were added, the graphics could be improved, but it doesn't seem too important.
### External Avatars
In order to rasterize a user's avatar onto the summary card, it might have to be retrieved by the server from the external source (eg. Gravatar). A `fetchExternalImage` routine attempts to do this in the safest way possible to protect the server from any possible security exposure from this; (a) verifying that the content-types are acceptable, (b) ensuring that the file-size and image-size are within the safe bounds that are used for custom avatars, (c) using a very-short timeout to avoid stalling the server if an external dependency is offline.
### Caching
Summary cards are cached after rendered. This has the downside of causing updates to statuses, avatars, titles, etc. being stale on the summary card for the cache TTL. However, during testing I found that some social media engines like Mastodon will cause the summary card to be accessed a significant number of times after being referenced by a post, causing a mini-tornado of requests. The cache compensates for this to avoid server load in this situation.
### Scope
I'm considering out-of-scope:
- Summary cards on other objects (eg. repos, users) can be left for future implementation
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- ~~I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...~~ n/a, no JS changes
- [x] ~~in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.~~
- [x] ~~in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).~~
- Manual testing
- [x] Access & attach screenshots of both an issue and a pull-request's summary card; see below
- [x] Ensure reasonable (non-crash) behavior of rendering text with glyphs outside the font -- correctly rendered as replacement unicode chars
- [x] Using a public test instance, verify that og:image behavior looks good on platforms like Mastodon and BlueSky
- [x] Bluesky: ✅
- [x] Mastodon: ✅ (Note that the summary card will be requested many times as the post is federated; either each server, or each client, will fetch it itself)
- [x] OpenGraph test site (https://www.opengraph.xyz/): ✅
- [x] Discord: Looks OK ✅; needs "twitter:card" to be set to "summary_large_image" to display the large-scale image, but (a) that's probably annoying to use, (b) probably wrong because it doesn't match Twitter Card's spec for a "photographic image", and (c) don't want to encourage/continue use of vendor-specific tag
- [x] Verify cases with user avatar missing (or autogen), and repo avatar missing (falls back to repo owner avatar)
Pull request summary card:
Issue summary card:
(images to the right are the custom repo avatar, w/ fallback to the repo owner avatar)
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
- OpenGraph capabilities are expected to work in the background without user awareness, and so there is no need for documentation to explain the capabilities for users.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6053
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
fixes #22907
Tested:
- [x] issue content edit
- [x] issue content change tasklist
- [x] pull request content edit
- [x] pull request change tasklist
(cherry picked from commit aa92b13164e84c26be91153b6022220ce0a27720)
Conflicts:
models/issues/comment.go
c7a389f2b2 [FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
trivial context conflicts
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
services/issue/comments.go
services/issue/content.go
user blocking is implemented differently in Forgejo
routers/web/repo/issue.go
trivial difference from 6a0750177f Allow to save empty comment
user blocking is implemented differently in Forgejo
templates/repo/issue/view_content/conversation.tmpl
templates changed a lot in Forgejo but the change is
trivially ported
tests/integration/issue_test.go
other tests were added in the same region
web_src/js/features/repo-issue-edit.js
the code is still web_src/js/features/repo-legacy.js
trivially ported
* Split TestPullRequest out of AddTestPullRequestTask
* A Created field is added to the Issue table
* The Created field is set to the time (with nano resolution) on creation
* Record the nano time repo_module.PushUpdateOptions is created by the hook
* The decision to update a pull request created before a commit was
pushed is based on the time (with nano resolution) the git hook
was run and the Created field
It ensures the following happens:
* commit C is pushed
* the git hook queues AddTestPullRequestTask for processing and returns with success
* TestPullRequest is not called yet
* a pull request P with commit C as the head is created
* TestPullRequest runs and ignores P because it was created after the commit was received
When the "created" column is NULL, no verification is done, pull
requests that were created before the column was created in the
database cannot be newer than the latest call to a git hook.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
This PR will avoid load pullrequest.Issue twice in pull request list
page. It will reduce x times database queries for those WIP pull
requests.
Partially fix #29585
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit 62f8174aa2fae1481c7e17a6afcb731a5b178cd0)
Conflicts:
models/activities/notification_list.go
moved to models/activities/notification.go
This PR touches the most interesting part of the "template refactoring".
1. Unclear variable type. Especially for "web/feed/convert.go":
sometimes it uses text, sometimes it uses HTML.
2. Assign text content to "RenderedContent" field, for example: `
project.RenderedContent = project.Description` in web/org/projects.go
3. Assign rendered content to text field, for example: `r.Note =
rendered content` in web/repo/release.go
4. (possible) Incorrectly calling `{{Str2html
.PackageDescriptor.Metadata.ReleaseNotes}}` in
package/content/nuget.tmpl, I guess the name Str2html misleads
developers to use it to "render string to html", but it only sanitizes.
if ReleaseNotes really contains HTML, then this is not a problem.
(cherry picked from commit e71eb8930a5d0f60874b038c223498b41ad65592)
Conflicts:
modules/templates/util_string.go
trivial context conflict
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 511c519c87)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b4a8f61)
(cherry picked from commit fdd4da111c)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) do not use token= query param
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/33439b733a
(cherry picked from commit c5139a75b9)
(cherry picked from commit c7b572c35d)
(cherry picked from commit aec7503ff6)
(cherry picked from commit 87c65f2a49)
(cherry picked from commit bd47ee33c2)
(cherry picked from commit f3dbd90a74)
Using the Go Official tool `golang.org/x/tools/cmd/deadcode@latest`
mentioned by [go blog](https://go.dev/blog/deadcode).
Just use `deadcode .` in the project root folder and it gives a list of
unused functions. Though it has some false alarms.
This PR removes dead code detected in `models/issues`.
Fix #24662.
Replace #24822 and #25708 (although it has been merged)
## Background
In the past, Gitea supported issue searching with a keyword and
conditions in a less efficient way. It worked by searching for issues
with the keyword and obtaining limited IDs (as it is heavy to get all)
on the indexer (bleve/elasticsearch/meilisearch), and then querying with
conditions on the database to find a subset of the found IDs. This is
why the results could be incomplete.
To solve this issue, we need to store all fields that could be used as
conditions in the indexer and support both keyword and additional
conditions when searching with the indexer.
## Major changes
- Redefine `IndexerData` to include all fields that could be used as
filter conditions.
- Refactor `Search(ctx context.Context, kw string, repoIDs []int64,
limit, start int, state string)` to `Search(ctx context.Context, options
*SearchOptions)`, so it supports more conditions now.
- Change the data type stored in `issueIndexerQueue`. Use
`IndexerMetadata` instead of `IndexerData` in case the data has been
updated while it is in the queue. This also reduces the storage size of
the queue.
- Enhance searching with Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch, make them
fully support `SearchOptions`. Also, update the data versions.
- Keep most logic of database indexer, but remove
`issues.SearchIssueIDsByKeyword` in `models` to avoid confusion where is
the entry point to search issues.
- Start a Meilisearch instance to test it in unit tests.
- Add unit tests with almost full coverage to test
Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch indexer.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
This addressees some things from #24406 that came up after the PR was
merged. Mostly from @delvh.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves #2175.
## Screenshots
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This PR
- [x] Move some functions from `issues.go` to `issue_stats.go` and
`issue_label.go`
- [x] Remove duplicated issue options `UserIssueStatsOption` to keep
only one `IssuesOptions`
This PR
- [x] Move some code from `issue.go` to `issue_search.go` and
`issue_update.go`
- [x] Use `IssuesOptions` instead of `IssueStatsOptions` becuase they
are too similiar.
- [x] Rename some functions
Close #24195
Some of the changes are taken from my another fix
f07b0de997
in #20147 (although that PR was discarded ....)
The bug is:
1. The old code doesn't handle `removedfile` event correctly
2. The old code doesn't provide attachments for type=CommentTypeReview
This PR doesn't intend to refactor the "upload" code to a perfect state
(to avoid making the review difficult), so some legacy styles are kept.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Adds API endpoints to manage issue/PR dependencies
* `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` List issues that are
blocked by this issue
* `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` Block the issue
given in the body by the issue in path
* `DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` Unblock the issue
given in the body by the issue in path
* `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` List an
issue's dependencies
* `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` Create a new
issue dependencies
* `DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` Remove an
issue dependency
Closes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/15393
Closes #22115
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
This includes pull requests that you approved, requested changes or
commented on. Currently such pull requests are not visible in any of the
filters on /pulls, while they may need further action like merging, or
prodding the author or reviewers.
Especially when working with a large team on a repository it's helpful
to get a full overview of pull requests that may need your attention,
without having to sift through the complete list.
Ensure that issue pullrequests are loaded before trying to set the
self-reference.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <leon@kske.dev>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Add a new "exclusive" option per label. This makes it so that when the
label is named `scope/name`, no other label with the same `scope/`
prefix can be set on an issue.
The scope is determined by the last occurence of `/`, so for example
`scope/alpha/name` and `scope/beta/name` are considered to be in
different scopes and can coexist.
Exclusive scopes are not enforced by any database rules, however they
are enforced when editing labels at the models level, automatically
removing any existing labels in the same scope when either attaching a
new label or replacing all labels.
In menus use a circle instead of checkbox to indicate they function as
radio buttons per scope. Issue filtering by label ensures that only a
single scoped label is selected at a time. Clicking with alt key can be
used to remove a scoped label, both when editing individual issues and
batch editing.
Label rendering refactor for consistency and code simplification:
* Labels now consistently have the same shape, emojis and tooltips
everywhere. This includes the label list and label assignment menus.
* In label list, show description below label same as label menus.
* Don't use exactly black/white text colors to look a bit nicer.
* Simplify text color computation. There is no point computing luminance
in linear color space, as this is a perceptual problem and sRGB is
closer to perceptually linear.
* Increase height of label assignment menus to show more labels. Showing
only 3-4 labels at a time leads to a lot of scrolling.
* Render all labels with a new RenderLabel template helper function.
Label creation and editing in multiline modal menu:
* Change label creation to open a modal menu like label editing.
* Change menu layout to place name, description and colors on separate
lines.
* Don't color cancel button red in label editing modal menu.
* Align text to the left in model menu for better readability and
consistent with settings layout elsewhere.
Custom exclusive scoped label rendering:
* Display scoped label prefix and suffix with slightly darker and
lighter background color respectively, and a slanted edge between them
similar to the `/` symbol.
* In menus exclusive labels are grouped with a divider line.
---------
Co-authored-by: Yarden Shoham <hrsi88@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Fix #22797.
## Reason
If a comment was migrated from other platforms, this comment may have an
original author and its poster is always not the original author. When
the `roleDescriptor` func get the poster's role descriptor for a
comment, it does not check if the comment has an original author. So the
migrated comments' original authors might be marked as incorrect roles.
---------
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
partially fix #19345
This PR add some `Link` methods for different objects. The `Link`
methods are not different from `HTMLURL`, they are lack of the absolute
URL. And most of UI `HTMLURL` have been replaced to `Link` so that users
can visit them from a different domain or IP.
This PR also introduces a new javascript configuration
`window.config.reqAppUrl` which is different from `appUrl` which is
still an absolute url but the domain has been replaced to the current
requested domain.
This PR fixes two problems. One is when filter repository issues, only
repository level projects are listed. Another is if you list open
issues, only open projects will be displayed in filter options and if
you list closed issues, only closed projects will be displayed in filter
options.
In this PR, both repository level and org/user level projects will be
displayed in filter, and both open and closed projects will be listed as
filter items.
---------
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Currently only a single project like milestone, not multiple like
labels.
Implements #14298
Code by @brechtvl
---------
Co-authored-by: Brecht Van Lommel <brecht@blender.org>
- Move the file `compare.go` and `slice.go` to `slice.go`.
- Fix `ExistsInSlice`, it's buggy
- It uses `sort.Search`, so it assumes that the input slice is sorted.
- It passes `func(i int) bool { return slice[i] == target })` to
`sort.Search`, that's incorrect, check the doc of `sort.Search`.
- Conbine `IsInt64InSlice(int64, []int64)` and `ExistsInSlice(string,
[]string)` to `SliceContains[T]([]T, T)`.
- Conbine `IsSliceInt64Eq([]int64, []int64)` and `IsEqualSlice([]string,
[]string)` to `SliceSortedEqual[T]([]T, T)`.
- Add `SliceEqual[T]([]T, T)` as a distinction from
`SliceSortedEqual[T]([]T, T)`.
- Redesign `RemoveIDFromList([]int64, int64) ([]int64, bool)` to
`SliceRemoveAll[T]([]T, T) []T`.
- Add `SliceContainsFunc[T]([]T, func(T) bool)` and
`SliceRemoveAllFunc[T]([]T, func(T) bool)` for general use.
- Add comments to explain why not `golang.org/x/exp/slices`.
- Add unit tests.
Some dbs require that all tables have primary keys, see
- #16802
- #21086
We can add a test to keep it from being broken again.
Edit:
~Added missing primary key for `ForeignReference`~ Dropped the
`ForeignReference` table to satisfy the check, so it closes #21086.
More context can be found in comments.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
