- 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
- 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.
Resolves #29965.
---
Manually tested this by:
- Following the
[installation](https://docs.gitea.com/next/installation/install-with-docker#basics)
guide (but built a local Docker image instead)
- Creating 2 users, one who is the `Owner` of a newly-created repository
and the other a `Collaborator`
- Had the `Collaborator` create a PR that the `Owner` reviews
- `Collaborator` resolves conversation and `Owner` merges PR
And with this change we see that we can no longer see re-request review
button for the `Owner`:
<img width="1351" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-25 at 12 39 18 AM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/60799661/bcd9c579-3cf7-474f-a51e-b436fe1a39a4">
(cherry picked from commit 242b331260925e604150346e61329097d5731e77)
- Remove `gitea.com/lunny/dingtalk_webhook` as dependency, we only use
two structs which are small enough to be recreated in Forgejo and don't
need to rely on the dependency.
- Existing tests (thanks @oliverpool) prove that this has no effect.
- `user_model.DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses` related code was added in
Gogs as part to delete inactive users, however since then the related
code to delete users has changed and this code now already delete email
addresses of the user, it's therefore not needed anymore to
`DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses`.
- The call to `DeleteInactiveEmailAddresses` can actually cause issues.
As the associated user might not have been deleted, because it
was not older than the specified `olderThan` argument. Therefore causing
a database inconsistency and lead to internal server errors if the user
tries to activate their account.
- Adds unit test to verify correct behavior (fails without this patch).
- 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
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28297
This PR also fixed a problem that it needs a database transaction when
removing the WIP title.
---
Resolves #2771
Also partially ports gitea#29783
(cherry picked from commit 17d7ab5ad4ce3d0fbc1251572c22687c237a30b1)
The fix against the race incorrectly assumes the sha of the commit being
pushed belongs to the base repository. It finds the highest possible
pull request ID from the head repository instead of looking it up in
the base repository.
Figuring out if a PR was created in the future based on the highest
index of the base repository would require collecting all of them
because there is no way to know in advance which repository may be
involved in the race.
Fixing this race can be done either by:
* Introducing a new field in the pull_request table https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2842
which feels more like a hack than a real solution
* Refactoring the logic
which would be a significant undertaking
The race has been in the codebase for a very long time and manifests
itself in the CI, when events happen in quick succession. The only
concrete manifestation was however fixed by https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Since this race now only exists in theory and not in practice, let's
revert this bugous commit until a proper solution is implemented.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2817
This reverts commit 036f1eddc5.
Conflicts:
services/pull/pull.go
(cherry picked from commit f8ab9dafb7a173a35e9308f8f784735b0f822439)
Conflicts:
routers/web/repo/fork.go
trivial context conflict, the file does not exist in Forgejo
