A Forgejo Action job should be uniquely identifiable by its `ID` and `Attempt` number. Each time a particular job is (re-)run, its `Attempt` number is incremented while its `ID` remains static. Unfortunately, `Attempt` is not incremented when the (re-)run is triggered, but right when Forgejo Runner requests the job. That makes identifying a particular run much harder, because the attempt number is changed in the midst of an attempt. Furthermore, it requires taking the job's `Status` into account. This is fixed by setting the correct attempt number right when a (re-)run is triggered. That means that the `Attempt` number remains static for the duration of a single attempt.
## 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
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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.
- [ ] 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/11750
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Last known backend change for #11311, fixing up some loose ends on the repository APIs related to repo-specific access tokens.
Adds automated testing, and aligns permissions where necessary, to ensure that repo-specific access tokens can't change the administrative state of the repositories that they are limited to.
Repo-specific access tokens cannot be used to:
- convert a mirror into a normal repo,
- create a new repository from a template,
- transfer ownership of a repository
- create a new repository (already protected, but test automation added),
- delete a repository (already protected, but test automation added),
- editing a repository's settings (already protected, but test automation added).
**Breaking**: The template generation (`POST /repos/{template_owner}/{template_repo}/generate`) and repository deletion (`DELETE /repos/{username}/{reponame}`) APIs have been updated to require the same permission scope as creating a new repository. Either `write:user` or `write:organization` is required, depending on the owner of the repository being created or deleted.
## 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
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11736
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Add more HTTP status codes returned by the API to the API documentation.
## 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
- 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 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.
*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/11717
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: hwipl <hwipl@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: hwipl <hwipl@noreply.codeberg.org>
The permission check for editing the attachments of a comment (adding or removing them) is changed to be the same as when editing the textual body of the comment.
The poster of a comment can always edit it via the web UI, which includes the ability to remove or add attachments. It does not require write permission on the issue or pull unit of the repository.
The API is consistent with the web UI in how it [verifies permissions for editing comments][0] when modifying the textual content. However, when adding or removing the attachments of a comment, it [also requires write permissions][1] on the issue or pull unit, which is inconsistent with the web UI and more restrictive.
[0]: a581059606/routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment.go (L606)
[1]: a581059606/routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go (L359)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11623
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Co-committed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@posteo.com>
Instead of going with a single extension, extracted by `filepath.Ext()`,
all possible extensions are now generated for a given filename, by
splitting the filename using a "." separator, starting with the
longest candidate. Moreover, each extension candidate is matched
against the actual set of known renderers (`extRenderers`), and
only the longest matching extension is used.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/5190.
Co-authored-by: Michael Hanke <michael.hanke@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11439
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <matrss@0px.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <matrss@0px.xyz>
We are updating the user's personal access token page (`/user/settings/applications`) to allow the creation of repo-specific tokens, adding a third option to "Repository and Organization Access". In preparation for this new UI, this PR moves the creation of access tokens to a new page accessed by "New access token".
This also resolves a pet-peeve: the "Select permissions" dropdown on the inline edit form hides a *required* input for an access token. This section is expanded on the new dedicated page. (The Vue component used here is replaced with a JS-free alternative as well. This form component used to lose selected values when an error occurred, and it didn't make sense as a Vue component, so it has been translated into an HTML template instead.)
## 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
- 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 ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11659
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.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>
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11711 discovered that headers from the container registry are leaking into the other registries. That was introduced by https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11393. This PR fixes the problem and adds a regression test to the Maven repository.
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11733
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
- fix: show oauth2 retrieve error
- `true` indicates it only should be shown when the page is rendered
directly via `ctx.HTML` and not propagated if it redirects. As you can
see this always redirects and means the error is not shown.
- Has the funny behavior that you get redirected to `/user/login`
without any indication what went wrong, no errors in the logs either.
- fix: pre-process OAuth2 client ID and secret
- Spaces should are not appropriate for these input, remove them.
- Manually copying and pasting client ID and secret from Github OAuth2
applications seems prone to introduce whitespaces.
- The error of having a incorrect client ID is more noticeable (404 page
for the user).
- The error of having a incorrect client secret is not noticeable (404
page for the goth library but no mention it's the wrong secret).
Reported-by: marijnh
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11715
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
As requested in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11516#issuecomment-11430034, the headings of the list of recent tasks that were executed on a particular runner now indicate that only tasks are listed that originated in the current scope.
## 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...
- [ ] 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
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] 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.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11690
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Expose the attempt number of `ActionRunJob` in the HTTP API. It is required to uniquely identify a job run.
Example:
```
$ curl -u andreas --basic http://192.168.178.62:3000/api/v1/repos/andreas/test/actions/runners/jobs
```
```json
[{"id":63,"attempt":2,"repo_id":1,"owner_id":1,"name":"test","needs":null,"runs_on":["debian"],"task_id":0,"status":"waiting"}]
```
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11687
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
After the [first attempt](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11393) to introduce a separate challenge for HTTP Basic Authentication failed and had to be [backed out](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11616) because two challenges in a single header field were not widely supported, we're trying it again. This time a second header `WWW-Authenticate` header is emitted.
Example:
```
$ curl -v -u andreas --basic http://192.168.178.62:3000/v2
Enter host password for user 'andreas':
* Trying 192.168.178.62:3000...
* Connected to 192.168.178.62 (192.168.178.62) port 3000
* using HTTP/1.x
* Server auth using Basic with user 'andreas'
> GET /v2 HTTP/1.1
> Host: 192.168.178.62:3000
> Authorization: Basic *****
> User-Agent: curl/8.15.0
> Accept: */*
>
* Request completely sent off
< HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
< Content-Length: 50
< Content-Type: application/json
< Docker-Distribution-Api-Version: registry/2.0
< Www-Authenticate: Bearer realm="http://192.168.178.62:3000/v2/token",service="container_registry",scope="*"
* Basic authentication problem, ignoring.
< Www-Authenticate: Basic realm="Forgejo Container Registry"
< Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 15:09:50 GMT
<
{"errors":[{"code":"UNAUTHORIZED","message":""}]}
```
Tested with Docker 29.1.3, Podman 5.8.0, and Apple container 0.9.0.
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11678
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Came across a coding error from #11504 while working on adding a UI for repo-specific access tokens. I couldn't find a practical way to test this fix as there are no expected error conditions that will be returned here, just database-level errors, and the `SetFaultInjector` capability in testing is only integrated into unit tests, not integration tests.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11682
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Add a `visible=true|false` flag to the HTTP API endpoints that return runners (`/user/actions/runners` and friends). Previously, all endpoints (except the one for admins) only returned the runners owned by the respective repository, user, or organization. The endpoint for admins returned all runners.
With this change, all endpoints only return the runners directly owned by the repository, user, organization, or instance by default (`visible=false`). With `visible=true`, the API returns the same runners as the UI. That means, for example, that `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/runners?visible=true` returns all runners owned by the repository, its owner, and the instance.
Additionally, the behaviour of the endpoint for getting a single runner was altered. With this change, it permits accessing all _visible_ runners, thereby matching the UI. Previously, only runners directly owned by the repository, user, or organization could be obtained, whereas the admin could obtain all. Furthermore, existence probing is no longer possible.
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11670
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
When fetching runners, the option `WithAvailable` can be enabled to fetch all runners that can be used by a repository, user, or organization, not only those that are owned by the respective repository, user, or organization. In the instance scope, `WithAvailable` has no meaning. You always get _all_ runners. This means it is impossible to only fetch runners that are owned by the instance, but no others.
This PR replaces `WithAvailable` with `WithVisible`. For repositories, users, and organizations, it has the same semantics as `WithAvailable`. For the instance scope, `WithVisible=true` equals today's default behaviour (i.e., return _all_ runners), whereas `WithVisible=false` is new and would only return the runners owned by the instance itself.
The advantage of `WithVisible` is that it has a consistent meaning across all scopes. This also lays the groundwork for the introduction of a `with-visible` (tentative name) flag in the HTTP API.
## 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.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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/11657
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
When creating an access token via API, if `"repositories": []`, then it is expected that the intent of the user was to create a repo-specific access token, but the API currently creates an all-access access token instead. `"repositories": []` is expected to be an error, instead of an unexpectedly wide grant.
Reported by @aahlenst during testing: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11604#issuecomment-11569816
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] 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.
- Bugfix in unreleased feature.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11653
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Forgejo Runner is deprecating the runner registration token. It is too powerful, requires tooling, and is unnecessary. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10677 added an HTTP API for runner registration. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11516 added the ability to manage runners using Forgejo's web interface and marked the runner registration token in the UI as deprecated. This PR deprecates the HTTP endpoints for obtaining the runner registration token by updating the API documentation. The implementation and all the tests remain in place and untouched.
See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/88 for context.
## 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...
- [ ] 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
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11650
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
When an access token is repository specific, display the repositories that it can access when expanded in the UI (token **test** in this screenshot):
Default, collapsed view is unchanged:
Bulk loading of repositories is refactored out of the access token API endpoint into a `BulkGetRepositoriesForAccessTokens` method that can be used in both this UI, and the original API location.
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11604
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Forgejo Runner is deprecating the runner registration token. It is too powerful, requires tooling, and is unnecessary. As a consequence, users need new mechanisms for managing runners in Forgejo. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10677 added an HTTP API for runner registration. This PR adds the ability to manage runners using Forgejo's web interface.
Runners can be added, modified, and deleted. It is also possible to regenerate a runner's token. When a runner is added or a runner's token is regenerated, setup instructions are displayed. They explain how to alter Forgejo Runner's configuration file or how to launch `forgejo-runner daemon` (yet to be implemented). The existing details page has been overhauled and is now accessible to all users that are allowed to use a particular runner. The details page displays additional information that had to be removed from the list of runners due to space constraints. The task list is filtered. That means it only lists jobs of the respective repository, user, or organization.
The runner registration token has been marked as deprecated.
See https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/88 for context and design considerations.
## 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.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11516
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
This is based on https://code.forgejo.org/go-chi/session/pulls/80.
The remainder of this message is largely copied from there:
For interoperability with reverse proxies and CDNs, setting a session
cookie for no good reason (login is a good reason) is a PITA, because it
makes caching of content for anonymous (not logged-in) users very hard,
requiring all kinds of special casing and error prone workarounds.
In particular in an age of exploitative AI bot crawling, being able to
serve content for anonymous users from a fast, efficient page cache is
an important option.
This patch lays a foundation by using an option added to go-chi/session
to not create session cookies always, but rather only when the
respective session is non-empty.
Test cases are included there and omitted here.
Closes#11355, namely:
1. bug: editing the note does not edit the orginal content, but the rendered content
- 16368c4ccb
- edit raw notes instead of rendered notes
2. bug: editing existing note on single-commit PR page leads to 404 page because it sends a POST request to `/OWNER/REPO/pulls/ID/commits/COMMIT_HASH/notes`
- f036fc55db
- add new paths for the actions on pull request pages for `/OWNER/REPO/pulls/ID/commits/COMMIT_HASH/notes` and `/OWNER/REPO/pulls/ID/commits/COMMIT_HASH/notes/remove`
3. feat: both for adding and editing there is no `Cancel` button
- 58d8c7cc87
- moved both the `Cancel` and the `Save`/`Edit` button to the right for better consistency how, e.g., issue comments are edited/created.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11365
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11393 introduced a second challenge, one for HTTP Basic Authentication, to the existing `WWW-Authenticate` header sent by Forgejo's container registry in response to missing or invalid credentials. However, that led to unexpected compatibility issues with some clients. For example, it broke Renovate (see https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions/41774).
To be extra-safe, the decision was taken to revert that particular change without introducing a second header field (i.e., sending two `WWW-Authenticate` headers). That effectively restores the old behaviour.
```
$ curl -v -u andreas --basic http://192.168.178.62:3000/v2
Enter host password for user 'andreas':
* Trying 192.168.178.62:3000...
* Connected to 192.168.178.62 (192.168.178.62) port 3000
* using HTTP/1.x
* Server auth using Basic with user 'andreas'
> GET /v2 HTTP/1.1
> Host: 192.168.178.62:3000
> Authorization: Basic *****
> User-Agent: curl/8.15.0
> Accept: */*
>
* Request completely sent off
< HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
< Content-Length: 50
< Content-Type: application/json
< Docker-Distribution-Api-Version: registry/2.0
< Www-Authenticate: Bearer realm="http://192.168.178.62:3000/v2/token",service="container_registry",scope="*"
< Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:00:21 GMT
<
{"errors":[{"code":"UNAUTHORIZED","message":""}]}
```
## 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...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11616
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Currently:
- In the database, `NULL` is used in `action_runner_token.owner_id` & `.repo_id` to represent an absent value, as required by the foreign key
- In the code, `0` is used in `ActionRunnerToken.OwnerID` and `.RepoID` to represent an absent value
This PR replaces the `int64` fields with `optional.Option[int64]` which allows a single data type to be used for both cases, and removes the usage of the value `0` as a placeholder.
This change has a limited scope -- although `ActionRunnerToken` uses `NULL` values in the database, the related table `ActionRunner` still uses zero-values for `OwnerID` and `RepoID`. This means a lot of code interacting with both of these tables still uses `0` values, such as the UI. The changes here were stopped at a reasonable point to avoid cascading into all places that use the `ActionRunner` table. (I'll continue this work in the future to enable foreign keys on `ActionRunner`, but likely after #11516 is completed to avoid serious conflict resolution problems.)
## 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/11601
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
One of the security patches released 2026-03-09 [fixed a vulnerability](d1c7b04d09) caused by a misapplication of Go `case` statements, where the implementation would have been correct if Go `case` statements automatically fall through to the next case block, but they do not. This PR adds a semgrep rule which detects any empty `case` statement and raises an error, in order to prevent this coding mistake in the future.
For example, code like this will now trigger a build error:
```go
switch setting.Protocol {
case setting.HTTPUnix:
case setting.FCGI:
case setting.FCGIUnix:
default:
defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://"
}
```
Example error:
```
cmd/web.go
❯❯❱ semgrep.config.forgejo-switch-empty-case
switch has a case block with no content. This is treated as "break" by Go, but developers may
confuse it for "fallthrough". To fix this error, disambiguate by using "break" or
"fallthrough".
279┆ switch setting.Protocol {
280┆ case setting.HTTPUnix:
281┆ case setting.FCGI:
282┆ case setting.FCGIUnix:
283┆ default:
284┆ defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://"
285┆ if setting.HTTPAddr == "0.0.0.0" {
286┆ defaultLocalURL += "localhost"
287┆ } else {
288┆ defaultLocalURL += setting.HTTPAddr
```
As described in the error output, this error can be fixed by explicitly listing `break` (the real Go behaviour, to do nothing in the block), or by listing `fallthrough` (if the intent was to fall through).
All existing code triggering this detection has been changed to `break` (or, rarely, irrelevant cases have been removed), which should maintain the same code functionality. While performing this fixup, a light analysis was performed on each case and they *appeared* correct, but with ~65 cases I haven't gone into extreme depth.
Tests are present for the semgrep rule in `.semgrep/tests/go.go`.
## 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).
### 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/11593
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
The new filters are especially useful for status monotoring like kuma to have more relevant results.
The wrong status check seems to be a regression of #6300
## 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
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11584
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
Co-committed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@visualon.de>
AccessTokenError is never used as a Go error. In fact, it is returned
as a *AccessTokenError (which would result in a `nil` error when cast).
Rename the struct to a more accurate name and remove the unused
`Error() string` method to prevent future confusion.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11595
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Co-committed-by: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
## What is broken
Quota on packages is not enforced when pushing to an organisation.
`enforcePackagesQuota()` calls `EvaluateForUser(ctx.Doer.ID, ...)` — it checks how much space the **uploader** personally owns, not the org being pushed to. Since packages accumulate under `package.owner_id = org_id`, the uploader always shows 0 bytes used and the check always passes.
This also means site admins bypass quota entirely when pushing to orgs (they get the service-layer admin bypass on top of the 0-byte measurement).
OCI/container routes (`/v2/...`) have the same problem but worse — `enforcePackagesQuota()` was not called on them at all.
## Fix
Check quota against `ctx.Package.Owner.ID` instead of `ctx.Doer.ID`. The package owner (the org or user being pushed to) is already available via `ctx.Package.Owner`, populated by `PackageAssignment()` before this middleware runs.
For individual user namespaces nothing changes — `ctx.Package.Owner` is the user themselves.
Also wired `enforcePackagesQuota()` into the missing OCI upload routes: `InitiateUploadBlob`, `UploadBlob`, `EndUploadBlob`, `UploadManifest` — both in the named `/{image}` group and the wildcard `/*` handler.
## Tested
Kind cluster, org `maw2` with 1 GiB quota, 2.6 GiB of container images already pushed:
- pushing a generic package to `maw2` as SA user → was 201, now 413
- pushing a generic package to `maw2` as `gitea_admin` → was 201, now 413
- initiating OCI blob upload to `maw2` as SA user → was 202, now 413
- pushing to own user namespace within quota → still 201
Co-authored-by: azhluwi <lukasz.widera@convotis.ch>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11442
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: wejdross <wejdross@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: wejdross <wejdross@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR is part of a series (#11311).
Adds support for reading and creating repo-secific access tokens through the API via the `GET /users/{username}/tokens`, `POST /users/{username}/tokens`, and `DELETE /users/{username}/tokens/{id}` APIs.
Validation rules are included to [restrict repo-specific access tokens to specific scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951).
## 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.
- [x] 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504): <!--number 11504 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVhZCwgY3JlYXRlLCAmIGRlbGV0ZSByZXBvLXNwZWNpZmljIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnMgdmlhIEFQSQ==-->read, create, & delete repo-specific access tokens via API<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Submitting the repo avatar form without selecting a file shows a raw Go error: `Avatar.Open: open : no such file or directory.`. The existing `nil` check does not prevent this from happening.
The user avatar handler already guards against this same problem with [`form.Avatar != nil && form.Avatar.Filename != ""`](e1cecbd276/routers/web/user/setting/profile.go (L141)), I've done the same for the repo avatar handler.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11335
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Bram Hagens <bram@bramh.me>
Co-committed-by: Bram Hagens <bram@bramh.me>
Forgejo's OCI container registry did not enable basic authentication for the top-level endpoint `/v2`. Furthermore, it did not include the `WWW-Authenticate` header when returning the status code 401 as mandated by [RFC 7235](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7235#section-3.1), "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", section 3.1. Those deficiencies made it impossible for Apple's [container](https://github.com/apple/container) to log into Forgejo OCI container registry. This has been rectified.
The problem did not occur with most other tools because they do not include credentials when sending the initial request to `/v2`. Forgejo's reply then included `WWW-Authenticate` as expected.
Enabling basic authentication for `/v2` has the side effect that Apple's container uses username and password for all successive requests and not the bearer token. If that is a problem, it's up to Apple to change container's behaviour.
If invalid credentials are passed to `container registry login`, then container enters an infinite loop. The same happens with quay.io, but not ghcr.io (returns 403) or docker.io (returns 401 but _without_ `WWW-Authenticate`). As this is invalid behaviour on container's side, it's up to Apple to change container. Docker and Podman handle it correctly.
Login and pushing have been tested manually with Docker 29.1.3, Podman 5.7.1, and Apple's container 0.9.0.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11297.
## 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.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- 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
- [x] 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.
- [ ] 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/11393
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
It was sufficiently checked for the repostiory case, but for user/org
project it was not checked and you could change the state of any
project by there mere knowledge of a ID.
The API already checked the permission sufficiently if auto merge could
be cancelled by the doer. The web route did not. Consolidate this check
in the function that lives in the services directory.
It was possible to hijack attachments during update and create functions
to another owner as permissions to check they weren't already attached
to another resource and wasn't checked if it belonged to the repository
that was being operated on.
We do not know for sure, but it is quite likely someone assumed implicit
fallthrough. This meant that if someone used S256 for PKCE, it simply
did not verify the code challenge and always accepted it.
PKCE only started working recently as it was broken for a long time
already, forgejo/forgejo!8678
As discussed here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/444 the container v2 API logic does need some refactoring for better maintainability.
This is a proposition on how to achieve that. My goal was to be able to write unit tests for functions like processImageManifest() which are currently only tested indirectly by TestPackageContainer() in tests/integration/api_packages_container_test.go.
A first unit test was implemented that targets ProcessManifest(). I think that test also shows what steps are needed to successfully execute the ProcessManifest() function and hopefully helps understanding that code better.
## 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.
*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/11432
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
This PR is part of a series (#11311).
If the user authenticating to an API call is a Forgejo site administrator, or a Forgejo repo administrator, a wide variety of permission and ownership checks in the API are either bypassed, or are bypassable. If a user has created an access token with restricted resources, I understand the intent of the user is to create a token which has a layer of risk reduction in the event that the token is lost/leaked to an attacker. For this reason, it makes sense to me that restricted scope access tokens shouldn't inherit the owner's administrator access.
My intent is that repo-specific access tokens [will only be able to access specific authorization scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951), probably: `repository:read`, `repository:write`, `issue:read`, `issue:write`, (`organization:read` / `user:read` maybe). This means that *most* admin access is not intended to be affected by this because repo-specific access tokens won't have, for example, `admin:write` scope. However, administrative access still grants elevated permissions in some areas that are relevant to these scopes, and need to be restricted:
- The `?sudo=otheruser` query parameter allows site administrators to impersonate other users in the API.
- Repository management rules are different for a site administrator, allowing them to create repos for another user, create repos in another organization, migrate a repository to an arbitrary owner, and transfer a repository to a prviate organization.
- Administrators have access to extra data through some APIs which would be in scope: the detailed configuration of branch protection rules, the some details of repository deploy keys (which repo, and which scope -- seems odd), (user:read -- user SSH keys, activity feeds of private users, user profiles of private users, user webhook configurations).
- Pull request reviews have additional perms for repo administrators, including the ability to dismiss PR reviews, delete PR reviews, and view draft PR reviews.
- Repo admins and site admins can comment on locked issues, and related to comments can edit or delete other user's comments and attachments.
- Repo admins can manage and view logged time on behalf of other users.
A handful of these permissions may make sense for repo-specific access tokens, but most of them clearly exceed the risk that would be expected from creating a limited scope access token. I'd generally prefer to take a restrictive approach, and we can relax it if real-world use-cases come in -- users will have a workaround of creating an access token without repo-specific restrictions if they are blocked from needed access.
**Breaking:** The administration restrictions introduced in this PR affect both repo-specific access tokens, and existing public-only access tokens.
## 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.
- [x] 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
- [x] 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.
- Although repo-specific access tokens are not yet exposed to end users, the breaking changes to public-only tokens will be visible to users and require release notes.
- [ ] 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/11468
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This PR is part of a series (#11311).
Prevents the usage of three internal APIs in the web API code:
- `repo_model.SearchRepoOptions{}` without an `AuthorizationReducer`
- `organization.SearchTeamRepoOptions{}` without an `AuthorizationReducer`
- `access_model.GetUserRepoPermission()`, which doesn't take an `AuthorizationReducer` -- use `GetUserRepoPermissionWithReducer` instead.
A couple lingering usages are marked with `// nosemgrep: ...` as they have been inspected and considered correct as-is.
The `GetUserRepoPermission` is tested via the `.semgrep/tests` files; the other rules have been tested manually.
## 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).
### 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/11476
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This reverts commit d4951968f0, #10008.
When Forgejo cancels a job server-side, for example due to an additional push to an open PR, it immediately archives the logs from DBFS to disk due to the changes in #10008. Then, the runner recognizes that the job status is cancelled and it attempts to flush its pending logs to Forgejo, resulting in warnings being logged:
```
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:11+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:11+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:11+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:12+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:13+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:14+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="runner: received shutdown signal"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="runner: shutdown initiated, waiting [runner].shutdown_timeout=0s for running jobs to complete before shutting down"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="[poller] shutdown begin, 1 tasks currently running"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:16+01:00" level=info msg="forcing the jobs to shutdown"
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:18+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
forgejo-runner.log:time="2026-02-23T01:32:24+01:00" level=warning msg="uploading final logs failed, but will be retried: already_exists: log file has been archived" task_id=51
```
This appears to be the cause of the `push-cancel` end-to-end test failing since #10008 was merged. https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/actions/runs/4985/jobs/8/attempt/1 The `push-cancel` test case itself seems to succeed, but then the test process aborts with `return 1`. Doesn't reproduce locally.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11462
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This change is to enable some additional trace logging for oauth2.
Initial setups can be a real pain to debug, and getting JWT back for debug purpose helps a lot i.e. checking claims, roles, groups.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11175
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: AngryDove <angrydove@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: AngryDove <angrydove@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Breaking*: /teams/{id}/repos previously allowed read access to private
repositories even if a "public-only" access token was in-use. This has
been restricted to only return public repositories in this case.
**Breaking**: when using a public-only access tokens, private
repositories were not filtered out by the `/users/{username}/repos` or
`/orgs/{org}/repos` APIs. This access has been removed in this change.
**Breaking**: accessing the `/repositories/{id}` API with a public-only
access token did not restrict read access to only public repositories.
As part of a consolidation of permission logic with repo-specific access
tokens, this access has not been restricted.
As these APIs only work on forks, and it's not possible to change the
visibility of a fork from its parent, only testing the API access
pattern against the head is sufficient. Also it is not a breaking
change due to checkTokenPublicOnly middleware already enforcing this for
public-only scopes, and the lack of ability to change a fork's
visibility.
