Adds support for `optional.Option[T]` to be used on an xorm schema struct to represent nullable fields. The `optional.None[T]()` value will be stored in the database as `NULL`.
```go
type OptionString struct {
ID int64 `xorm:"pk autoincr"`
StringField optional.Option[string]
}
```
Before this change, it is possible to represent a nullable field in two reasonable ways: , or as a `sql.Null[T]` (eg. `StringField sql.Null[string]`). The problems with these are:
- as a pointer (eg. `StringField *string`) -- but this introduces the risk of panics when `nil` values are dereferenced, and makes it difficult to use literals in structure creation (although `new()` in Go 1.26 would reduce this issue when Forgejo is upgraded to it)
- as a `sql.Null[T]` -- but this "leaks" references to the `database/sql` package for anything that interacts with Forgejo models, and it's API is awkward as nothing gates you into checking the `Valid` field before you access and use the `V` field
`optional.Option[T]` addresses these points and provides a single way to use an optional primitive type, with a safe check-before-access interface, which can be used consistently throughout model code and other application code. Figuring out the best way to handle this became a blocker to me for [adding foreign keys to nullable fields](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/385#issuecomment-10218316) in database models, which is what drove me to implement this solution.
## Notes: Filtering on `Option[T]` Fields
It is supported and functional to perform queries with xorm beans with non-None `Option` values. For example:
```go
cond := &OptionString{
StringField: optional.Some("hello"),
}
err := db.GetEngine(t.Context()).Find(&arr, cond)
```
will generate a database query `WHERE string_field = 'hello'`, and correctly filter the records.
It is **not** supported to perform queries with `None` values, for two reasons:
- xorm cannot distinguish between an explicit `&OptionString{ StringField: optional.None[string]() }`, and `&OptionString{}`. Both of them have the `StringField` field set to the zero-value of `Option[String]`.
- For this SQL query to be formatted correctly, it would require `WHERE string_field IS NOT NULL`, not `WHERE string_field = NULL`. This is not how xorm generated bean-based queries.
This is similar to the risk that exists with any other field querying on its zero-value with xorm. It's an unfortunate structural limitation of xorm, and can lead to developers believing database queries are performing filtering that they are not.
(perhaps we can mitigate this risk with semgrep or other automated tooling in the future)
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11553
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
`Option[T]` currently exposes a method `Value()` which is permitted to be called on an option that has a value, and an option that doesn't have a value. This API is awkward because the behaviour if the option doesn't have a value isn't clear to the caller, and, because almost all accesses end up being `.Has()?` then `OK, use .Value()`.
`Get() (bool, T)` is added as a better replacement, which both returns whether the option has a value, and the value if present. Most call-sites are rewritten to this form.
`ValueOrZeroValue()` is a direct replacement that has the same behaviour that `Value()` had, but describes the behaviour if the value is missing.
In addition to the current API being awkward, the core reason for this change is that `Value()` conflicts with the `Value()` function from the `driver.Valuer` interface. If this interface was implemented, it would allow `Option[T]` to be used to represent a nullable field in an xorm bean struct (requires: https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/66).
_Note:_ changes are extensive in this PR, but are almost all changes are easy, mechanical transitions from `.Has()` to `.Get()`. All of this work was performed by hand.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11218
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#28660
Fixes an admin api bug related to `user.LoginSource`
Fixed `/user/emails` response not identical to GitHub api
This PR unifies the user update methods. The goal is to keep the logic
only at one place (having audit logs in mind). For example, do the
password checks only in one method not everywhere a password is updated.
After that PR is merged, the user creation should be next.
