Related #20471
This PR adds global quota limits for the package registry. Settings for
individual users/orgs can be added in a seperate PR using the settings
table.
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/21640
Before: Gitea can create users like ".xxx" or "x..y", which is not
ideal, it's already a consensus that dot filenames have special
meanings, and `a..b` is a confusing name when doing cross repo compare.
After: stricter
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
_This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting
some parts, see below_
## Context
In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication.
The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a
given token. For instance:
- Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the
header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872)
- TeamCity #18667
- Gitea instances #20267
- SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this
is my actual personal need :)
## Proposed solution
Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing
it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all
present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307).
This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872.
As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and
improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple
`Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and
`Basic` switches):
The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase
justifying otherwise.
## Questions
- What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind
- ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new
file, or is there a command for that?~~
- ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I
drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~
## Done as well:
- add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the
`Authorization` logic there
_Closes #19872_
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
The OAuth spec [defines two types of
client](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-2.1),
confidential and public. Previously Gitea assumed all clients to be
confidential.
> OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to authenticate
securely with the authorization server (i.e., ability to
> maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
>
> confidential
> Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., client implemented on a secure server with
> restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
>
> **public
> Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., clients executing on the device used by the resource
owner, such as an installed native application or a web browser-based
application), and incapable of secure client authentication via any
other means.**
>
> The client type designation is based on the authorization server's
definition of secure authentication and its acceptable exposure levels
of client credentials. The authorization server SHOULD NOT make
assumptions about the client type.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.4
> Authorization servers MUST record the client type in the client
registration details in order to identify and process requests
accordingly.
Require PKCE for public clients:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.1
> Authorization servers SHOULD reject authorization requests from native
apps that don't use PKCE by returning an error message
Fixes#21299
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
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>
At the moment a repository reference is needed for webhooks. With the
upcoming package PR we need to send webhooks without a repository
reference. For example a package is uploaded to an organization. In
theory this enables the usage of webhooks for future user actions.
This PR removes the repository id from `HookTask` and changes how the
hooks are processed (see `services/webhook/deliver.go`). In a follow up
PR I want to remove the usage of the `UniqueQueue´ and replace it with a
normal queue because there is no reason to be unique.
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
A lot of our code is repeatedly testing if individual errors are
specific types of Not Exist errors. This is repetitative and unnecesary.
`Unwrap() error` provides a common way of labelling an error as a
NotExist error and we can/should use this.
This PR has chosen to use the common `io/fs` errors e.g.
`fs.ErrNotExist` for our errors. This is in some ways not completely
correct as these are not filesystem errors but it seems like a
reasonable thing to do and would allow us to simplify a lot of our code
to `errors.Is(err, fs.ErrNotExist)` instead of
`package.IsErr...NotExist(err)`
I am open to suggestions to use a different base error - perhaps
`models/db.ErrNotExist` if that would be felt to be better.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
depends on #18871
Added some api integration tests to help testing of #18798.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Related:
* #21362
This PR uses a general and stable method to generate resource index (eg:
Issue Index, PR Index)
If the code looks good, I can add more tests
ps: please skip the diff, only have a look at the new code. It's
entirely re-written.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
For security reasons, all e-mail addresses starting with
non-alphanumeric characters were rejected. This is too broad and rejects
perfectly valid e-mail addresses. Only leading hyphens should be
rejected -- in all other cases e-mail address specification should
follow RFC 5322.
Co-authored-by: Andreas Fischer <_@ndreas.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
- Currently `repository.Num{Issues,Pulls}` weren't checked and could
become out-of-consistency. Adds these two checks to `CheckRepoStats`.
- Fix incorrect SQL query for `repository.NumClosedPulls`, the check
should be for `repo_num_pulls`.
- Reference: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/696
Adds the settings pages to create OAuth2 apps also to the org settings
and allows to create apps for orgs.
Refactoring: the oauth2 related templates are shared for
instance-wide/org/user, and the backend code uses `OAuth2CommonHandlers`
to share code for instance-wide/org/user.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fixes#21250
Related #20414
Conan packages don't have to follow SemVer.
The migration fixes the setting for all existing Conan and Generic
(#20414) packages.
Adds GitHub-like pages to view watched repos and subscribed issues/PRs
This is my second try to fix this, but it is better than the first since
it doesn't uses a filter option which could be slow when accessing
`/issues` or `/pulls` and it shows both pulls and issues (the first try
is #17053).
Closes#16111
Replaces and closes#17053
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This adds an api endpoint `/files` to PRs that allows to get a list of changed files.
built upon #18228, reviews there are included
closes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/654
Co-authored-by: Anton Bracke <anton@ju60.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fixes#21206
If user and viewer are equal the method should return true.
Also the common organization check was wrong as `count` can never be
less then 0.
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
There is a mistake in the batched delete comments part of DeleteUser which causes some comments to not be deleted
The code incorrectly updates the `start` of the limit clause resulting in most comments not being deleted.
```go
if err = e.Where("type=? AND poster_id=?", issues_model.CommentTypeComment, u.ID).Limit(batchSize, start).Find(&comments); err != nil {
```
should be:
```go
if err = e.Where("type=? AND poster_id=?", issues_model.CommentTypeComment, u.ID).Limit(batchSize, 0).Find(&comments); err != nil {
```
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Add support for triggering webhook notifications on wiki changes.
This PR contains frontend and backend for webhook notifications on wiki actions (create a new page, rename a page, edit a page and delete a page). The frontend got a new checkbox under the Custom Event -> Repository Events section. There is only one checkbox for create/edit/rename/delete actions, because it makes no sense to separate it and others like releases or packages follow the same schema.
The actions itself are separated, so that different notifications will be executed (with the "action" field). All the webhook receivers implement the new interface method (Wiki) and the corresponding tests.
When implementing this, I encounter a little bug on editing a wiki page. Creating and editing a wiki page is technically the same action and will be handled by the ```updateWikiPage``` function. But the function need to know if it is a new wiki page or just a change. This distinction is done by the ```action``` parameter, but this will not be sent by the frontend (on form submit). This PR will fix this by adding the ```action``` parameter with the values ```_new``` or ```_edit```, which will be used by the ```updateWikiPage``` function.
I've done integration tests with matrix and gitea (http).
Fix#16457
Signed-off-by: Aaron Fischer <mail@aaron-fischer.net>
A testing cleanup.
This pull request replaces `os.MkdirTemp` with `t.TempDir`. We can use the `T.TempDir` function from the `testing` package to create temporary directory. The directory created by `T.TempDir` is automatically removed when the test and all its subtests complete.
This saves us at least 2 lines (error check, and cleanup) on every instance, or in some cases adds cleanup that we forgot.
Reference: https://pkg.go.dev/testing#T.TempDir
```go
func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
// before
tmpDir, err := os.MkdirTemp("", "")
require.NoError(t, err)
defer os.RemoveAll(tmpDir)
// now
tmpDir := t.TempDir()
}
```
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
When migrating add several more important sanity checks:
* SHAs must be SHAs
* Refs must be valid Refs
* URLs must be reasonable
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
In #21031 we have discovered that on very big tables postgres will use a
search involving the sort term in preference to the restrictive index.
Therefore we add another index for postgres and update the original migration.
Fix#21031
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* fix hard-coded timeout and error panic in API archive download endpoint
This commit updates the `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/archive/{archive}`
endpoint which prior to this PR had a couple of issues.
1. The endpoint had a hard-coded 20s timeout for the archiver to complete after
which a 500 (Internal Server Error) was returned to client. For a scripted
API client there was no clear way of telling that the operation timed out and
that it should retry.
2. Whenever the timeout _did occur_, the code used to panic. This was caused by
the API endpoint "delegating" to the same call path as the web, which uses a
slightly different way of reporting errors (HTML rather than JSON for
example).
More specifically, `api/v1/repo/file.go#GetArchive` just called through to
`web/repo/repo.go#Download`, which expects the `Context` to have a `Render`
field set, but which is `nil` for API calls. Hence, a `nil` pointer error.
The code addresses (1) by dropping the hard-coded timeout. Instead, any
timeout/cancelation on the incoming `Context` is used.
The code addresses (2) by updating the API endpoint to use a separate call path
for the API-triggered archive download. This avoids producing HTML-errors on
errors (it now produces JSON errors).
Signed-off-by: Peter Gardfjäll <peter.gardfjall.work@gmail.com>
Adds a new option to only show relevant repo's on the explore page, for bigger Gitea instances like Codeberg this is a nice option to enable to make the explore page more populated with unique and "high" quality repo's. A note is shown that the results are filtered and have the possibility to see the unfiltered results.
Co-authored-by: vednoc <vednoc@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
