- [Go 1.24](https://groups.google.com/g/golang-announce/c/vYMfuq_XO6w)
is currently out for rc1.
- Using it to test unit tests and integration testing it failed horribly
with strange panics and errors, it is caused by
ca63101df4
and Forgejo trying to access the wrong internal data structures that
have been changed in Go 1.24.
- Use the new data structure for Go 1.24 and above.
Signed-off-by: Awiteb <a@4rs.nl>
Fixes: #6239
## Checklist
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] 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...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] 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)).
### 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.
### 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/6240
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Awiteb <a@4rs.nl>
Co-committed-by: Awiteb <a@4rs.nl>
This commit has a fundamental flaw, in order to syncronize if external
users are still active the commit checks if the refresh token is
accepted by the OAuth provider, if that is not the case it sees that as
the user is disabled and sets the is active field to `false` to signal
that. Because it might be possible (this commit makes this a highly
likelyhood) that the OAuth provider still recognizes this user the
commit introduces code to allow users to re-active themselves via the
oauth flow if they were disabled because of this. However this code
makes no distinction in why the user was disabled and always re-actives
the user.
Thus the reactivation via the OAuth flow allows users to bypass the
manually activation setting (`[service].REGISTER_MANUAL_CONFIRM`) or if
the admin for other reasons disabled the user.
This reverts commit 21fdd28f08.
- The root cause is described in b4f1988a35
- Move to a fork of `github.com/gliderlabs/ssh` that exposes the
permissions that was chosen by `x/crypto/ssh` after succesfully
authenticating, this is the recommended mitigation by the Golang
security team. The fork exposes this, since `gliderlabs/ssh` instead
relies on context values to do so, which is vulnerable to the same
attack, although partially mitigated by the fix in `x/crypto/ssh` it
would not be good practice and defense deep to rely on it.
- Existing tests covers that the functionality is preserved.
- No tests are added to ensure it fixes the described security, the
exploit relies on non-standard SSH behavior it would be too hard to
craft SSH packets to exploit this.
- create screenshots on tests that create a custom page
- skip screenshot on a page that uses the default page (it is added
automatically and already exists)
- replace a useless response wait and assert the correct page style
instead
The milestone can only be determined to be final when a pull request
is merged.
It is possible that a pull request is opened during the development of
v10 and merged after it is published.
It is also possible that it is permanently closed without being merged.
Port of d11f8d24b0.
Followup to 187e10d8c9.
* removed `aria-label` in the diff template
* changed `Copy to clipboard` to `Copy path`
* left `copy_generic` for now, but it's unused
* ported the addition of this button to the file view template
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6079
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
