Summary:
- Move existing test under a `testify` Suite as `baseRedisWithServerTestSuite`
- Those tests require real redis server.
- Add `go.uber.org/mock/mockgen@latest` as dependency
- as a tool (Makefile).
- in the `go.mod` file.
- Mock redis client lives under a `mock` directory under the queue module.
- That mock module has an extra hand-written mock in-memory redis-like struct.
- Add tests using the mock redis client.
- Changed the logic around queue provider creation.
- Now the `getNewQueue` returns a Queue provider directly, not an init
function to create it.
The whole Queue module is close to impossible to test properly because
everything is private, everything goes through a struct route. Because
of that, we can't test for example what keys are used for given queue.
To overcome this, as a first step I removed one step from that hard
route by allowing custom calls to create new queue provider. To achieve
this, I moved the creation logic into the `getNewQueue` (previously it
was `getNewQueueFn`). That changes nothing on that side, everything goes
as before, except the `newXXX` call happens directly in that function
and not outside that.
That made it possible to add extra provider specific parameters to those
function (`newXXX`). For example a client on redis. Calling it through
the `getNewQueue` function, it gets `nil`.
- If the provided client is not `nil`, it will use that instead of the
connection string.
- If it's `nil` (default behaviour), it creates a new redis client as it
did before, no changes to that.
The rest of the provider code is unchanged. All these changes were
required to make it possible to generate mock clients for providers and
use them.
For the tests, the existing two test cases are good with redis server,
and they need some extra helpers, for example to start a new redis
server if required, or waiting on a redis server to be ready to use.
These helpers are only required for test cases using real redis server.
For better isolation, moved existing test under a testify Suite, and
moved them into a new test file called `base_redis_with_server_test.go`
because, well they test the code with server. These tests do exactly the
same as before, calling the same sub-tests the same way as before, the
only change is the structure of the test (remove repetition, scope
server related helper functions).
Finally, we can create unit tests without redis server. The main focus of
this group of tests are higher level overview of operations. With the
mock redis client we can set up expectations about used queue names,
received values, return value to simulate faulty state.
These new unit test functions don't test all functionality, at least
it's not aimed for it now. It's more about the possibility of doing that
and add extra tests around parts we couldn't test before, for example
key.
What extra features can test the new unit test group:
- What is the received key for given queue? For example using `prefix`,
or if all the `SXxx` calls are expected to use `queue_unique` if
it's a unique queue.
- If it's not a unique queue, no `SXxx` functions are called, because
those sets are used only to check if a value is unique or not.
- `HasItem` return `false` always if it's a non-unique queue.
- All functions are called exactly `N` times, and we don't have any
unexpected calls to redis from the code.
Signed-off-by: Victoria Nadasdi <victoria@efertone.me>
This PR ports [gitea#30858](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/30858) / [this commit](5c236bd4c0) to forgejo.
[week 2024-20 cherry pick](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3729)
## Tests
- [ ] Click "edit" to get into edit mode, change the title and then use Alt+Enter to save the title
## Screenshots
Before:
After:
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3797
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mai-Lapyst <mai-lapyst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Mai-Lapyst <mai-lapyst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Hello,
It is more idiomatic to put the date/time before the action in Mandarin (in this context). To achieve this, instead of having the time following the string that's passed to the translating function, I added it as a parameter so that one can reference it and reorder the sentence for better translatability.
Only Traditional Chinese has been changed at the time of opening this PR, as this is more of a proof of concept and I would like to have feedbacks on whether this is a good solution or is there a better alternative.
Thank you and have a nice day :)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3837
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Léana 江 <leana.jiang+git@icloud.com>
Co-committed-by: Léana 江 <leana.jiang+git@icloud.com>
Just a small actualization of a string key. I don't think we have any more replaceable `gitea` in the locales at the moment.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3822
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
For security reasons, scoping access to a redis server via ACL rules is
a good practice. Some parts of the codebase handles prefix like cache[^1]
and session[^2], but the queue module doesn't.
This patch adds this missing functionality to the queue module.
Note about relevant test:
I tried to keep the PR as small as possible (and reasonable), and not
change how the test runs. Updated the existing test to use the same
redis address and basically duplicated the test with the extra flag. It
does NOT test if the keys are correct, it ensures only it works as
expected. To make assertions about the keys, the whole test has to be
updated as the general wrapper doesn't allow the main test to check
anything provider (redis) specific property. That's not something I
wanted to take on now.
[^1]: e4c3c039be/modules/cache/cache_redis.go (L139-L150)
[^2]: e4c3c039be/modules/session/redis.go (L122-L129)
Signed-off-by: Victoria Nadasdi <victoria@efertone.me>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3836
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Victoria Nadasdi <victoria@efertone.me>
Co-committed-by: Victoria Nadasdi <victoria@efertone.me>
Previously, if no branch was explicitly specified for a workflow, it
defaulted to the default branch of the repo. This worked fine for
workflows that were triggered on push, but it prevented showing badges
for workflows that only run on tags, or on schedule - since they do not
run on a specific branch.
Thus, relax the conditions, and if no branch is specified, just return
the latest run of the given workflow. If one is specified, *then*
restrict it to said branch.
Fixes #3487.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Current package registry for RubyGems does not work with Bundler, because it implements neither the [compact index](https://guides.rubygems.org/rubygems-org-compact-index-api/) or the [dependency API](https://guides.rubygems.org/rubygems-org-api/). As a result, bundler complains about finding non-existing dependencies when installing anything with dependency: `revealed dependencies not in the API or the lockfile`.
This patch provides a minimal implementation for the compact index API to solve this issue. Specifically, we implemented a version that does not cache the results / do incremental updates; which is consistent with the current implementation.
Testing:
* Modified existing integration tests.
* Manually Verified bundler is able to parse the served versions / info file.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3811
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Haoyuan (Bill) Xing <me@hoppinglife.com>
Co-committed-by: Haoyuan (Bill) Xing <me@hoppinglife.com>
There is no activities_model.Action* when sending a review comment,
this is deadcode and should be removed. Or a new event should be added
to differentiate it from a regular comment when evaluating templates.
Fix #30923
(cherry picked from commit effb405cae88474c27f5c8322a2627019af1cf64)
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Conflicts:
- modules/setting/oauth2.go
Conflicted due to different ways of logging. Since the log
message is removed anyway, resolved by removing it.
- modules/setting/oauth2_test.go
Manually copied the test added by Gitea.
- routers/install/install.go
Not a conflict per se, but adjusted to use NewJwtSecret().
The `errorCode` and `warningCode` options were removed at some point,
they are not recognized by golangci-lint any more at least and they do
not match their published json schema. `confidence` and
`ignore-generated-header` are at the default value so does not need to
be configured.
https://golangci-lint.run/usage/linters/#revive
(cherry picked from commit 028992429a2e14de39c9bb028637948e446d23ad)
The double quotes and the prefix/suffix space are unnecessary.
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
(cherry picked from commit 5b6f80989fbd0574ca188ab683389ff7659de30d)
Fixes #30959
Adds an API test for protected tags.
Fix existing tag in combination with fixtures.
(cherry picked from commit b1d8f13bd0ecd9c576ebf2ecbd9c7dbeb3f5254f)
Resolve #30917
Make the APIs for adding labels and replacing labels support both label
IDs and label names so the
[`actions/labeler`](https://github.com/actions/labeler) action can work
in Gitea.
<img width="600px"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/15528715/7835c771-f637-4c57-9ce5-e4fbf56fa0d3"
/>
(cherry picked from commit b3beaed147466739de0c24fd80206b5af8b71617)
Conflicts:
- modules/structs/issue_label.go
Resolved by applying the Gitea change by hand.
- tests/integration/api_issue_label_test.go
Resolved by copying the new tests.
This commit changes the code that deletes a runner so it updates the UUID before deleting the record. The new UUID is set to 8 0xff bytes followed by a little endian version of the record's numeric ID. Such UUIDs cannot be created from tokens when registering runners, as the first 16 bytes of the token are in the `[0-9a-f]` range. This should prevent deleted runners from colliding with new records if the tokens share the same first 16 characters.
It is a possible solution to issue #3828
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3830
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Emmanuel BENOÎT <tseeker@nocternity.net>
Co-committed-by: Emmanuel BENOÎT <tseeker@nocternity.net>
