Follow https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/30357
When user push to default branch, the schedule trigger user will be the
user.
When disable then enable action units in settings, the schedule trigger
user will be action user.
When repo is a mirror, the schedule trigger user will be action user. (
before it will return error, fixed by #30357)
As scheduled job is a cron, the trigger user should be action user from
Gitea, not a real user.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit cb6814adad4dc81a683b50826a211ce7bce731d7)
Conflicts:
- services/actions/notifier_helper.go
Conflict resolved by keeping Forgejo's version of the line.
(cherry picked from commit 829c3c6838)
Backport #30291 by @edwardzhanged
Add some logic in `convert.ToBranchProtection` to return only the names
associated with readAccess instead of returning all names. This will
ensure consistency in behavior between the frontend and backend.
Fixes: #27694
Co-authored-by: Edward Zhang <45360012+edwardzhanged@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.com>
Co-authored-by: wenzhuo.zhang <wenzhuo.zhang@geely.com>
(cherry picked from commit d88958bb99eabc07dead6965e396755e7b6d947f)
Backport #30375 by @jtran
Cookies may exist on "/subpath" and "/subpath/" for some legacy reasons
(eg: changed CookiePath behavior in code). The legacy cookie should be
removed correctly.
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jonnytran@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit e64926c5193e9ccc30b34f187d96c74d104179ae)
When sending notification emails about a release, use a properly
formatted, RFC-compliant message id, rather than the release's HTML URL
wrapped in angle brackets (which would not be compliant).
Fixes #3105.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit b0c0167c54)
This is a continuation of #2728, with a test case added.
Fixes #2633.
I kept @zareck 's commit as is, because I believe it is correct. We can't move the check to `owner.CanForkRepo()`, because `owner` is the future owner of the forked repo, and may be an organization. We need to check the admin permission of the `doer`, like in the case of repository creation.
I verified that the test fails without the `ForkRepository` change, and passes with it.
Co-authored-by: Cassio Zareck <cassiomilczareck@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3277
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Co-committed-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit ea4071ca9f)
Fix #30378
(cherry picked from commit 0fe9f93eb4c94d55e43b18b9c3cc6d513a34c0b5)
Conflicts:
- models/organization/org.go
- services/repository/delete.go
- services/user/delete.go
In all three cases, conflicts were resolved by manually adding
the lines added by the Gitea patch, keeping the Forgejo code
surrounding them.
- `RemoveFilesFromIndex` used an hardcoded empty commit ID for the SHA1
object format, this would result in an error if the repository was
initialized to use the sha256 object format. Get the object format of
the Git repository and use that to get the empty commit id.
- Adds unit test.
- Resolves #3184
(cherry picked from commit eeaef556c2)
Backport #30392 by @jam7
This patch improves the migration from gitbucket to gitea.
The gitbucket uses it's own internal perPage value (= 25) for paging and
ignore per_page arguments in the requested URL. This cause gitea to
migrate only 25 issues and 25 PRs from gitbucket repository. This may
not happens on old gitbucket. But recent gitbucket 4.40 or 4.38.4 has
this problem.
This patch change to use this internally hardcoded perPage of gitbucket
as gitea's maxPerPage numer when migrating from gitbucket. There are
several perPage values in gitbucket like 25 for Isseus/PRs and 10 for
Releases. Some of those API doesn't support paging yet. It sounds
difficult to implement, but using the minimum number among them worked
out very well. So, I use 10 in this patch.
Brief descriptions of problems and this patch are also available in
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/30316.
In addition, I'm not sure what kind of test cases are possible to write
here. It's a test for migration, so it requires testing gitbucket server
and gitea server, I guess. Please let me know if it is possible to write
such test cases here. Thanks!
Co-authored-by: Kazushi (Jam) Marukawa <jam@pobox.com>
(cherry picked from commit b941d7485b53e5dd093a1cce3c9ff47c91d4fc58)
Backport #30357 by @yp05327
When repo is a mirror, and commit author is an external user, then
`GetUserByEmail` will return error.
reproduce/test:
- mirror Gitea to your instance
- disable action and enable it again, this will trigger
`DetectAndHandleSchedules`
ps: also follow #24706, it only fixed normal runs, not scheduled runs.
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
(cherry picked from commit 69cc79173ddbf7662c4d7246b6161b9351038d16)
`log.Xxx("%v")` is not ideal, this PR adds necessary context messages.
Remove some unnecessary logs.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
(cherry picked from commit 83f83019ef3471b847a300f0821499b3896ec987)
Conflicts:
- modules/util/util.go
Conflict resolved by picking `util.Iif` from 654cfd1dfbd3f3f1d94addee50b6fe2b018a49c3
(cherry picked from commit 492d116b2a468991f44d6d37ec33f918ccbe4514)
Conflicts:
modules/util/util.go
trivial context conflict as the commit is picked from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3212
The user that caused the notification to re-evaluates the
schedules is not the one that will trigger the workflows. They are
background tasks that are authored by the action user (id -2).
Such a mis-assignment is problematic when the user that caused the
notification is deleted.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3211
(cherry picked from commit c3e2c25359)
* 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
(cherry picked from commit 998a431747)
Conflicts:
models/forgejo_migrations/migrate.go
see https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3165#issuecomment-1755941
services/pull/pull.go
trivial conflicts
- The code that gets contributor stats tried to store an
`map[string]*ContributorData` type in the cache, this works for the
memory cache but not for other caches such as Redis.
- The cache implementation for Redis would convert this map via
`fmt.Sprintf` to an string, which would simply print the pointer and not
the value of the pointer. Storing pointers is a no-go as this will get
GC-ed eventually within a few minutes. Therefore store everything with
json, that does properly store the value of the pointers.
- Adds unit test that verifies JSON is being used.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3158
(cherry picked from commit 4c8b67c4b2)
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1518
An attempt at adding an optional pronoun field for user profiles, as suggested here 3 years ago: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13990
I made this for [my own instance](https://git.gay/h) and didn't initially think I'd make a PR because of the previous closed issue, but I thought I'd ask the Forgejo matrix chat to see if there was any support and there was!
I'm told I should make a database migration, some help as to how to do that would be appreciated.
Co-authored-by: hazycora <hazysu@riseup.net>
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3076
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
- Remove options that currently aren't set
on `GarbageCollectLFSMetaObjectsOptions` and
`IterateLFSMetaObjectsForRepoOptions`.
- Simplify `IterateRepositoryIDsWithLFSMetaObjects` and
`IterateLFSMetaObjectsForRepo`.
- `IterateLFSMetaObjectsForRepo` was previously able to get in a
loop (`gc-lfs` doctor check was able to reproduce this) because the code
expected that the records would be updated to not match the SQL query,
but that wasn't the case. Simply enforce that only records higher than
the latest `id` from the previous iteration are allowed.
- For `gc-lfs` doctor check this was because `UpdatedLessRecentlyThan`
option was not set, which caused that records just marked as active in
the iteration weren't being filtered.
- Add unit tests
- Most likely a regression from 2cc3a6381c.
- The bug with `gc-lfs` was found on Codeberg.
(cherry picked from commit 7ffa7f5bce)
- When the database consistency is being run it would check for any
OAuth2 applications that don't have an existing user. However there are
few special OAuth2 applications that don't have an user set, because
they are global applications.
- This was not taken into account by the database consistency checker
and were removed if the database consistency check was being run with
autofix enabled.
- Take into account to ignore these global OAuth2 applications when
running the database consistency check.
- Add unit tests.
- Ref: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1530
(cherry picked from commit 6af8f3a3f2)
- Currently protected branch rules do not apply to admins, however in
some cases (like in the case of Forgejo project) you might also want to
apply these rules to admins to avoid accidental merges.
- Add new option to configure this on a per-rule basis.
- Adds integration tests.
- Resolves #65
