Instead of repeating the tests that verify the ID of a comment
is related to the repository of the API endpoint, add the middleware
function commentAssignment() to assign ctx.Comment if the ID of the
comment is verified to be related to the repository.
There already are integration tests for cases of potential unrelated
comment IDs that cover some of the modified endpoints which covers the
commentAssignment() function logic.
* TestAPICommentReactions - GetIssueCommentReactions
* TestAPICommentReactions - PostIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPICommentReactions - DeleteIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPIEditComment - EditIssueComment
* TestAPIDeleteComment - DeleteIssueComment
* TestAPIGetCommentAttachment - GetIssueCommentAttachment
The other modified endpoints do not have tests to verify cases of
potential unrelated comment IDs. They no longer need to because they
no longer implement the logic to enforce this. They however all have
integration tests that verify the commentAssignment() they now rely on
does not introduce a regression.
* TestAPIGetComment - GetIssueComment
* TestAPIListCommentAttachments - ListIssueCommentAttachments
* TestAPICreateCommentAttachment - CreateIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIEditCommentAttachment - EditIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIDeleteCommentAttachment - DeleteIssueCommentAttachment
(cherry picked from commit d414376d74)
(cherry picked from commit 09db07aeae)
(cherry picked from commit f44830c3cb)
Conflicts:
modules/context/api.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2249
(cherry picked from commit 9d1bf7be15)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
Expose the repository flags feature over the API, so the flags can be
managed by a site administrator without using the web API.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit bac9f0225d)
(cherry picked from commit e7f5c1ba14)
(cherry picked from commit 95d9fe19cf)
(cherry picked from commit 7fc51991e4)
- Switch the supported schemas for the Swagger API around, such that
https is the first one listed. This ensures that when the Swagger API is
used it will default to the https schema, which is likely the schema you
want to use in the majority of the cases.
- Resolves #1895
BREAKING CHANGE NOTICE:
If you are using the Swagger API JSON directly to communicate with the
Forgejo API, the library you are using may be using the first schema
defined in the JSON file (e.g. https://code.forgejo.org/swagger.v1.json)
to construct the request url, this used to be `http` but has now changed
to `https`. This can cause failures if you want to send the swagger
request over `http` (and there is no HTTPS redirection configured).
(cherry picked from commit 81e5f43886)
(cherry picked from commit d847469ea2)
(cherry picked from commit 96e75e1d5c)
(cherry picked from commit 65baa64261)
(cherry picked from commit cd3e0a74e6)
(cherry picked from commit a3127e90b2)
(cherry picked from commit 2b22272dc5)
(cherry picked from commit 7363790592)
(cherry picked from commit 432b9a4451)
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)
The CORS code has been unmaintained for long time, and the behavior is
not correct.
This PR tries to improve it. The key point is written as comment in
code. And add more tests.
Fix #28515
Fix #27642
Fix #17098
## Changes
- Add deprecation warning to `Token` and `AccessToken` authentication
methods in swagger.
- Add deprecation warning header to API response. Example:
```
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Warning: token and access_token API authentication is deprecated
...
```
- Add setting `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` to reject query string auth
tokens entirely. Default is `false`
## Next steps
- `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` should be true in a subsequent release and
the methods should be removed in swagger
- `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` should be removed and the implementation of
the auth methods in question should be removed
## Open questions
- Should there be further changes to the swagger documentation?
Deprecation is not yet supported for security definitions (coming in
[OpenAPI Spec version
3.2.0](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/issues/2506))
- Should the API router logger sanitize urls that use `token` or
`access_token`? (This is obviously an insufficient solution on its own)
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Fixes #27819
We have support for two factor logins with the normal web login and with
basic auth. For basic auth the two factor check was implemented at three
different places and you need to know that this check is necessary. This
PR moves the check into the basic auth itself.
This feature was removed by #22219 to avoid possible CSRF attack.
This PR takes reverseproxy auth for API back but with default disabled.
To prevent possbile CSRF attack, the responsibility will be the
reverseproxy but not Gitea itself.
For those want to enable this `ENABLE_REVERSE_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION_API`,
they should know what they are doing.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
They currently throw a Internal Server Error when you use them without a
token. Now they correctly return a `token is required` error.
This is no security issue. If you use this endpoints with a token that
don't have the correct permission, you get the correct error. This is
not affected by this PR.
- Add routes for creating or updating a user's actions secrets in
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/user/action.go` with functions for
creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
- Modify the `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl` file to include the routes
for creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
- Modify the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function in `api.go` to include a
`Delete` operation for the secret
- Modify the `DeleteOrgSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the organization
- Modify the `DeleteSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the repository
- Modify the `v1_json.tmpl` template file to update the `operationId`
and `summary` for the `deleteSecret` operation in both the organization
and repository sections
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-a-repository-secret
- Add a new route for creating or updating a secret value in a
repository
- Create a new file `routers/api/v1/repo/action.go` with the
implementation of the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function
- Update the Swagger documentation for the `updateRepoSecret` operation
in the `v1_json.tmpl` template file
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
According to the GitHub API Spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-an-organization-secret
Merge the Create and Update secret into a single API.
- Remove the `CreateSecretOption` struct and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateSecretOption` in `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Update the `CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` to use `CreateOrUpdateSecretOption`
instead of `UpdateSecretOption`
- Remove the `CreateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret`
- Update the Swagger documentation in
`routers/api/v1/swagger/options.go` and `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl`
to reflect the changes in the struct names and function names
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new `CreateSecretOption` struct for creating secrets
- Implement a `CreateOrgSecret` function to create a secret in an
organization
- Add a new route in `api.go` to handle the creation of organization
secrets
- Update the Swagger template to include the new `CreateOrgSecret` API
endpoint
---------
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new function `CountOrgSecrets` in the file
`models/secret/secret.go`
- Add a new file `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Add a new function `ListActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
- Add a new function `listActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
go-sdk: https://gitea.com/gitea/go-sdk/pulls/629
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
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 adds an API for uploading and Deleting Avatars for of Users, Repos
and Organisations. I'm not sure, if this should also be added to the
Admin API.
Resolves #25344
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
1. The "web" package shouldn't depends on "modules/context" package,
instead, let each "web context" register themselves to the "web"
package.
2. The old Init/Free doesn't make sense, so simplify it
* The ctx in "Init(ctx)" is never used, and shouldn't be used that way
* The "Free" is never called and shouldn't be called because the SSPI
instance is shared
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Changes
- Adds the following high level access scopes, each with `read` and
`write` levels:
- `activitypub`
- `admin` (hidden if user is not a site admin)
- `misc`
- `notification`
- `organization`
- `package`
- `issue`
- `repository`
- `user`
- Adds new middleware function `tokenRequiresScopes()` in addition to
`reqToken()`
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` is used for each high-level api section
- _if_ a scoped token is present, checks that the required scope is
included based on the section and HTTP method
- `reqToken()` is used for individual routes
- checks that required authentication is present (but does not check
scope levels as this will already have been handled by
`tokenRequiresScopes()`
- Adds migration to convert old scoped access tokens to the new set of
scopes
- Updates the user interface for scope selection
### User interface example
<img width="903" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 55 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/654766ec-2143-4f59-9037-3b51600e32f3">
<img width="917" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 43 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/1ad64081-012c-4a73-b393-66b30352654c">
## tokenRequiresScopes Design Decision
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` was added to more reliably cover api routes.
For an incoming request, this function uses the given scope category
(say `AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization`) and the HTTP method (say
`DELETE`) and verifies that any scoped tokens in use include
`delete:organization`.
- `reqToken()` is used to enforce auth for individual routes that
require it. If a scoped token is not present for a request,
`tokenRequiresScopes()` will not return an error
## TODO
- [x] Alphabetize scope categories
- [x] Change 'public repos only' to a radio button (private vs public).
Also expand this to organizations
- [X] Disable token creation if no scopes selected. Alternatively, show
warning
- [x] `reqToken()` is missing from many `POST/DELETE` routes in the api.
`tokenRequiresScopes()` only checks that a given token has the correct
scope, `reqToken()` must be used to check that a token (or some other
auth) is present.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] The migration should be reviewed very carefully in order to
minimize access changes to existing user tokens.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] Link to api to swagger documentation, clarify what
read/write/delete levels correspond to
- [x] Review cases where more than one scope is needed as this directly
deviates from the api definition.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- For example:
```go
m.Group("/users/{username}/orgs", func() {
m.Get("", reqToken(), org.ListUserOrgs)
m.Get("/{org}/permissions", reqToken(), org.GetUserOrgsPermissions)
}, tokenRequiresScopes(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser,
auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization),
context_service.UserAssignmentAPI())
```
## Future improvements
- [ ] Add required scopes to swagger documentation
- [ ] Redesign `reqToken()` to be opt-out rather than opt-in
- [ ] Subdivide scopes like `repository`
- [ ] Once a token is created, if it has no scopes, we should display
text instead of an empty bullet point
- [ ] If the 'public repos only' option is selected, should read
categories be selected by default
Closes #24501
Closes #24799
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jon@allspice.io>
Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
This PR creates an API endpoint for creating/updating/deleting multiple
files in one API call similar to the solution provided by
[GitLab](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/commits.html#create-a-commit-with-multiple-files-and-actions).
To archive this, the CreateOrUpdateRepoFile and DeleteRepoFIle functions
in files service are unified into one function supporting multiple files
and actions.
Resolves #14619
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>
Replace #16455
Close #21803
Mixing different Gitea contexts together causes some problems:
1. Unable to respond proper content when error occurs, eg: Web should
respond HTML while API should respond JSON
2. Unclear dependency, eg: it's unclear when Context is used in
APIContext, which fields should be initialized, which methods are
necessary.
To make things clear, this PR introduces a Base context, it only
provides basic Req/Resp/Data features.
This PR mainly moves code. There are still many legacy problems and
TODOs in code, leave unrelated changes to future PRs.
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>
This adds a API for getting License templates. This tries to be as close
to the [GitHub
API](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/licenses?apiVersion=2022-11-28) as
possible, but Gitea does not support all features that GitHub has. I
think they should been added, but this out f the scope of this PR. You
should merge #23006 before this PR for security reasons.
The old code is unnecessarily complex, and has many misuses.
Old code "wraps" a lot, wrap wrap wrap, it's difficult to understand
which kind of handler is used.
The new code uses a general approach, we do not need to write all kinds
of handlers into the "wrapper", do not need to wrap them again and
again.
New code, there are only 2 concepts:
1. HandlerProvider: `func (h any) (handlerProvider func (next)
http.Handler)`, it can be used as middleware
2. Use HandlerProvider to get the final HandlerFunc, and use it for
`r.Get()`
And we can decouple the route package from context package (see the
TODO).
# FAQ
## Is `reflect` safe?
Yes, all handlers are checked during startup, see the `preCheckHandler`
comment. If any handler is wrong, developers could know it in the first
time.
## Does `reflect` affect performance?
No. https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/24080#discussion_r1164825901
1. This reflect code only runs for each web handler call, handler is far
more slower: 10ms-50ms
2. The reflect is pretty fast (comparing to other code): 0.000265ms
3. XORM has more reflect operations already
