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
Fix #26129
Replace #26258
This PR will introduce a transaction on creating pull request so that if
some step failed, it will rollback totally. And there will be no dirty
pull request exist.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
I noticed that `issue_service.CreateComment` adds transaction operations
on `issues_model.CreateComment`, we can merge the two functions and we
can avoid calling each other's methods in the `services` layer.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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 PR replaces all string refName as a type `git.RefName` to make the
code more maintainable.
Fix #15367
Replaces #23070
It also fixed a bug that tags are not sync because `git remote --prune
origin` will not remove local tags if remote removed.
We in fact should use `git fetch --prune --tags origin` but not `git
remote update origin` to do the sync.
Some answer from ChatGPT as ref.
> If the git fetch --prune --tags command is not working as expected,
there could be a few reasons why. Here are a few things to check:
>
>Make sure that you have the latest version of Git installed on your
system. You can check the version by running git --version in your
terminal. If you have an outdated version, try updating Git and see if
that resolves the issue.
>
>Check that your Git repository is properly configured to track the
remote repository's tags. You can check this by running git config
--get-all remote.origin.fetch and verifying that it includes
+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*. If it does not, you can add it by running git
config --add remote.origin.fetch "+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*".
>
>Verify that the tags you are trying to prune actually exist on the
remote repository. You can do this by running git ls-remote --tags
origin to list all the tags on the remote repository.
>
>Check if any local tags have been created that match the names of tags
on the remote repository. If so, these local tags may be preventing the
git fetch --prune --tags command from working properly. You can delete
local tags using the git tag -d command.
---------
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>
1. Remove unused fields/methods in web context.
2. Make callers call target function directly instead of the light
wrapper like "IsUserRepoReaderSpecific"
3. The "issue template" code shouldn't be put in the "modules/context"
package, so move them to the service package.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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>
The `commit_id` property name is the same as equivalent functionality in
GitHub. If the action was not caused by a commit, an empty string is
used.
This can for example be used to automatically add a Resolved label to an
issue fixed by a commit, or clear it when the issue is reopened.
When deleting a closed issue, we should update both `NumIssues`and
`NumClosedIssues`, or `NumOpenIssues`(`= NumIssues -NumClosedIssues`)
will be wrong. It's the same for pull requests.
Releated to #21557.
Alse fixed two harmless problems:
- The SQL to check issue/PR total numbers is wrong, that means it will
update the numbers even if they are correct.
- Replace legacy `num_issues = num_issues + 1` operations with
`UpdateRepoIssueNumbers`.
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix #16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Fix #20456
At some point during the 1.17 cycle abbreviated refishs to issue
branches started breaking. This is likely due serious inconsistencies in
our management of refs throughout Gitea - which is a bug needing to be
addressed in a different PR. (Likely more than one)
We should try to use non-abbreviated `fullref`s as much as possible.
That is where a user has inputted a abbreviated `refish` we should add
`refs/heads/` if it is `branch` etc. I know people keep writing and
merging PRs that remove prefixes from stored content but it is just
wrong and it keeps causing problems like this. We should only remove the
prefix at the time of
presentation as the prefix is the only way of knowing umambiguously and
permanently if the `ref` is referring to a `branch`, `tag` or `commit` /
`SHA`. We need to make it so that every ref has the appropriate prefix,
and probably also need to come up with some definitely unambiguous way
of storing `SHA`s if they're used in a `ref` or `refish` field. We must
not store a potentially
ambiguous `refish` as a `ref`. (Especially when referring a `tag` -
there is no reason why users cannot create a `branch` with the same
short name as a `tag` and vice versa and any attempt to prevent this
will fail. You can even create a `branch` and a
`tag` that matches the `SHA` pattern.)
To that end in order to fix this bug, when parsing issue templates check
the provided `Ref` (here a `refish` because almost all users do not know
or understand the subtly), if it does not start with `refs/` add the
`BranchPrefix` to it. This allows people to make their templates refer
to a `tag` but not to a `SHA` directly. (I don't think that is
particularly unreasonable but if people disagree I can make the `refish`
be checked to see if it matches the `SHA` pattern.)
Next we need to handle the issue links that are already written. The
links here are created with `git.RefURL`
Here we see there is a bug introduced in #17551 whereby the provided
`ref` argument can be double-escaped so we remove the incorrect external
escape. (The escape added in #17551 is in the right place -
unfortunately I missed that the calling function was doing the wrong
thing.)
Then within `RefURL()` we check if an unprefixed `ref` (therefore
potentially a `refish`) matches the `SHA` pattern before assuming that
is actually a `commit` - otherwise is assumed to be a `branch`. This
will handle most of the problem cases excepting the very unusual cases
where someone has deliberately written a `branch` to look like a `SHA1`.
But please if something is called a `ref` or interpreted as a `ref` make
it a full-ref before storing or using it. By all means if something is a
`branch` assume the prefix is removed but always add it back in if you
are using it as a `ref`. Stop storing abbreviated `branch` names and
`tag` names - which are `refish` as a `ref`. It will keep on causing
problems like this.
Fix #20456
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Fix #19513
This PR introduce a new db method `InTransaction(context.Context)`,
and also builtin check on `db.TxContext` and `db.WithTx`.
There is also a new method `db.AutoTx` has been introduced but could be used by other PRs.
`WithTx` will always open a new transaction, if a transaction exist in context, return an error.
`AutoTx` will try to open a new transaction if no transaction exist in context.
That means it will always enter a transaction if there is no error.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
When actions besides "delete" are performed on issues, the milestone
counter is updated. However, since deleting issues goes through a
different code path, the associated milestone's count wasn't being
updated, resulting in inaccurate counts until another issue in the same
milestone had a non-delete action performed on it.
I verified this change fixes the inaccurate counts using a local docker
build.
Fixes #21254
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* Check if project has the same repository id with issue when assign project to issue
* Check if issue's repository id match project's repository id
* Add more permission checking
* Remove invalid argument
* Fix errors
* Add generic check
* Remove duplicated check
* Return error + add check for new issues
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
* Move access and repo permission to models/perm/access
* fix test
* fix git test
* Move functions sequence
* Some improvements per @KN4CK3R and @delvh
* Move issues related code to models/issues
* Move some issues related sub package
* Merge
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Rename some files
The review request feature was added in https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/10756,
where the doer got explicitly excluded from available reviewers. I don't see a
functionality or security related reason to forbid this case.
As shown by GitHubs implementation, it may be useful to self-request a review,
to be reminded oneselves about reviewing, while communicating to team mates that a
review is missing.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Add new feature to delete issues and pulls via API
Co-authored-by: fnetx <git@fralix.ovh>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Unfortunately #17643 prevented all propagation of ErrDependenciesLeft meaning
that dependency errors that prevent closing of issues get swallowed.
This PR restores propagation of the error but instead swallows the error in the
places where it needs to be swallowed.
Fix #18223
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
