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>
Improves the performance of the `/repo/search?uid=N` API call, which is used on the user's dashboard to load a repo list. More detailed notes are in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11702.
Removes a redundant query condition (that a user was part of a team in an organization which could see a repo), and a condition that seems incorrect (that a repo could be seen just by being public within a private org, which is incorrect because that doesn't mean the user is a collaborator on the repo).
Covered by over 30 test cases in `repo_list_test.go` which did not fail from these changes. Mutation testing (removing the remaining "2." condition) verified that the codepath is covered as tests did fail.
## 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11729
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- Delete blocked users entries.
- Organization cannot get blocked, it can block other people however.
- Delete following entries.
- Organization cannot follow, it can be followed by users.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#11416
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11699
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@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>
Forgejo Runner [identifies runners by their UUID](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1380), not by their name. That means users should be able to find a runner in Forgejo not only using its name, but also using its UUID. With this change, when a user enters a (partial) UUID into the search bar on top of the list of runners, all matching runners will be found.
## 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.
- [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/11671
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 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>
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>
When merging #9254 I didn't make the mental note that v14 is already out and the migration would now apply to v15. Document this mistake.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11144
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
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>
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>
The [test disabling the issue unit][0] took care of [reseting the disabled units][1]. However, it overlooked that calling [`LoadUnitConfig`][2] also has a [side effect on `DefaultRepoUnits`][3]. It happens when [`validateDefaultRepoUnits` has a side effect][4] on the array backing the slice, when it is [not recreated][5]. As a result the issue unit is disabled for all tests that run after this one.
The subtle side effect is harmless because it only happens in tests, the `LoadUnitConfig` is otherwise only called once. For clarity `LoadUnitConfig` is modified to clone the unit array being validated so that the returned slice is never backed by the same array as the argument.
As the global variables used for repository units should be saved and restored as a whole, a dedicated test function (`SaveUnits`) is provided to be used by both integration tests and unit tests. The test of the unit model is refactored to be a blackbox test in order to avoid an import cycle.
[0]: cce5f868ce/tests/integration/repo_settings_test.go (L258)
[1]: cce5f868ce/tests/integration/repo_settings_test.go (L253)
[2]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L171)
[3]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L182)
[4]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L162)
[5]: cce5f868ce/models/unit/unit.go (L148)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11470
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
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>
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.
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.
It is unfortunately all mixed up, because refreshing the data, means breaking the tests. And changing the code means needing fresh data.
- tests: ignore some more headers and sort the rest when dumping http responses
- code: fixed#10234 by requesting the latest issues first.
- tests: created a new repo to replace the disappeared repo, needed for the skip-numbers test
- refreshed the testdata.
- follow-up fixes to get the tests green.
- including a cherry-pick of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36295 and #11272
Co-authored-by: Joakim Olsson <joakim@unbound.se>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11282
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
**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.
Project columns and cards use a sorting field for ordering, but nothing prevents duplicate values from being inserted. This causes unpredictable ordering and makes swap-based reordering unsafe. Additionally, the same issue can be added to a project multiple times, which shouldn't be possible.
This PR adds a migration to clean up existing data and enforce three unique constraints:
- (project_id, sorting) on project_board — one sorting value per column per project
- (project_id, issue_id) on project_issue — one card per issue per project
- (project_board_id, sorting) on project_issue — one sorting value per card per column
The migration deduplicates existing rows and reassigns sequential sorting values before adding the constraints.
Changes
- Migration: fix duplicate sorting values in project_board and project_issue, remove duplicate (project_id, issue_id) rows, add three unique constraints
- MoveColumnsOnProject: two-phase swap (negate then set) to avoid constraint collisions
- MoveIssuesOnProjectColumn: three-phase approach with duplicate validation and sorted lock ordering
- UpdateColumn: always persist sorting field (allows setting to 0)
- GetDefaultColumn: query max sorting before auto-creating
- createDefaultColumnsForProject: explicit sequential sorting
- changeProjectStatus: only set ClosedDateUnix when closing
## 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...
- [x] 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/11334
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org>
Co-committed-by: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org>
Probably fixes (or improves, at least) https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/1391, paired with the runner implementation https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1393.
When the FetchTask() API is invoked to create a task, unpreventable environmental errors may occur; for example, network disconnects and timeouts. It's possible that these errors occur after the server-side has assigned a task to the runner during the API call, in which case the error would cause that task to be lost between the two systems -- the server will think it's assigned to the runner, and the runner never received it. This can cause jobs to appear stuck at "Set up job".
The solution implemented here is idempotency in the FetchTask() API call, which means that the "same" FetchTask() API call is expected to return the same values. Specifically, the runner creates a unique identifier which is transmitted to the server as a header `x-runner-request-key` with each FetchTask() invocation which defines the sameness of the call, and the runner retains the value until the API call receives a successful response. The server implementation returns the same tasks back if a second (or Nth) call is received with the same `x-runner-request-key` header. In order to accomplish this is records the `x-runner-request-key` value that is used with each request that assigns tasks.
As a complication, the Forgejo server is unable to return the same `${{ secrets.forgejo_token }}` for the task because the server stores that value in a one-way hash in the database. To resolve this, the server regenerates the token when retrieving tasks for a second time.
## 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.
*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/11401
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#11036.
This adds a link from a CI run to the file that its workflow was taken from.
| Before | After |
|---------|---------|
|  |  |
Before:
* the `test.yml` link points to the list of other runs (`/org123/repo2/actions?workflow=test.yml`)
After:
* the `test.yml` link points to the workflow definition (`/org123/repo2/src/commit/55b048363c8cfa7d9e8b5cade5c75681bd0c7328/.forgejo/workflows/test.yml`)
* the `all runs` link points to the list of other runs (`/org123/repo2/actions?workflow=test.yml`)
I have tried to retain the existing link to the list of workflow runs (moving it to a separate link), but I am not sure if this link should be retained at all and if so how.
## Checklist
### Tests
- 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 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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11216): <!--number 11216 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bGluayBDSSBqb2IgdG8gaXRzIGRlZmluaW5nIHdvcmtmbG93IGZpbGU=-->link CI job to its defining workflow file<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11216
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
Co-committed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
As described in [this comment](https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/issues/19#issuecomment-739221) one-job runners are not secure when running in host mode. We implemented a routine preventing runner tokens from receiving a second job in order to render a potentially compromised token useless. Also we implemented a routine that removes finished runners as soon as possible.
Big thanks to [ChristopherHX](https://github.com/ChristopherHX) who did all the work for gitea!
Rel: #9407
## 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.
- [x] 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.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9962
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Manuel Ganter <manuel.ganter@think-ahead.tech>
Co-committed-by: Manuel Ganter <manuel.ganter@think-ahead.tech>
Previously, when a project id was passed into the new issue form as a
query parameter, it wouldn’t be selected if the project belonged to the
user or organization instead of directly to the repository.
Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#8489
Signed-off-by: Nils Philippsen <nils@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9906
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-authored-by: Nils Philippsen <nilsph@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Nils Philippsen <nilsph@noreply.codeberg.org>
### Tests
- 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 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.
### Disclaimer
Generative AI (ChatGPT) was used to debug the e2e test, with copied code lines below threshold of originality.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11156
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
`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>
Forgejo's UI claims that whitespace is removed from the beginning and the end of the values of Forgejo Actions variables and secrets. However, that is not correct. The entered values are stored as-is. Only CRLF is replaced with LF, which is also the desired behaviour.
This PR changes the incorrect text which is also no longer displayed as placeholder but as a proper help text below the input fields. Furthermore, tests were added to verify the behaviour.
While adding tests, I discovered and fixed another inconsistency. Depending on whether secrets were managed using the UI or the HTTP API, they were treated differently. CRLF in secrets entered in the UI was correctly replaced with LF while secrets created using the HTTP API kept CRLF.
Fixes#11003.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11052
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Adds a new button on the right side of the label's filter menu items to explicitly exclude labels.
The new button is reachable with the keyboard by using the vertical arrow keys to reach the label you want to exclude and then the horizontal arrow keys to select the exclusion button.
The new button will only be visible when hovering the menu item or reaching it with the keyboard.
Adjusted the alignment of labels when at least one label is selected so that users can clearly discern which labels are selected or not.
Resolves#3302
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10702
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Luis <luis@adame.dev>
Co-committed-by: Luis <luis@adame.dev>
Adds a CI check which detects any usage of xorm's `Sync` method that doesn't include `IgnoreDropIndices: true`, and causes an error.
`semgrep` is a semantic grep tool that allows for the relatively easy authoring of linting tools that are customized to a project's specific needs, rather than generic like `golangci` and related tools. Although `semgrep` offers a suite of out-of-the-box rules (and a paid set of rules), neither of those are used here -- only one Forgejo-specific rule is added in `.semgrep/xorm.yaml`.
My intent with this change is to introduce the idea and infrastructure of `semgrep` with a single minimal rule. Once in-place, this will become a tool that we can use when we recognize bad coding patterns and wish to correct them permanently, rather than relying on human code review. While generic linting tools do this well for general patterns, this will allow Forgejo to apply domain-specific checks. For example, in #11112, an error indicates that it might be appropriate for us to always use `.StorageEngine("InnoDB")` when using an xorm engine -- if we made that determination, it could be cemented in-place with a `semgrep` rule relatively easily.
This specific rule looks for any access for xorm's `Sync` or `SyncWithOptions` methods on the `*xorm.Engine` or `*xorm.Session`. They are then considered errors if they don't include `IgnoreDropIndices: true`. This is *typically* correct and safe, but can also be ignored when specifically needed. In the `.semgrep/tests` folder, test code is added which validates that the `semgrep` rule matches the expected patterns; this self-test is run before `semgrep` runs on the PR in CI.
As a demonstration, when `IgnoreDropIndices` is removed from a migration, here's an error: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/135750/jobs/12/attempt/1
```
models/forgejo_migrations/v14b_add-action_run-preexecutionerrorcode.go
❯❯❱ semgrep.xorm-sync-missing-ignore-drop-indices
xorm Sync operation may drop indices if used on an incomplete bean definition for an existing table.
Use SyncWithOptions with IgnoreDropIndices: true instead.
22┆ _, err := x.SyncWithOptions(xorm.SyncOptions{}, new(ActionRun))
```
## 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/11142
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
The end-to-end tests are currently failing on v15: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/actions/runs/4900/jobs/8/attempt/1#jobstep-4-356 This is a regression from #11164.
The cause of this regression is:
- When the job emitter emits new jobs, it *now* sets their `Needs` field correctly, fixed in #11164.
- If a job has `needs` set to a non-empty array, it will start as status **blocked**: db037fca50/models/actions/run.go (L369-L370)
This got past manual testing and the end-to-end test run in #11164 because it is intermittent. If the runner invokes `UpdateTask` multiple times once the status of the job is settled, then the API will invoke the job emitter multiple times -- a second run would unblock the newly blocked jobs. Podman-based runners do this often due to a long cleanup time, and Docker-based runners (like the end-to-end test) can do it randomly depending on a race condition.
db037fca50/routers/api/actions/runner/runner.go (L241-L244)
The fix for this is to reinvoke the job emitter's logic whenever new jobs are created, so that their new blocked state can be reevaluated to see if it is correct or not. This is treated cautiously by examining if new jobs are present.
## 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...
- [x] 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.
- This will be a fix to an unreleased regression within the milestone, and so won't be user-facing.
*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/11184
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
On an open PR that is waiting for job approval, if jobs haven't been approved by the time the abandon timeout occurs they get marked as cancelled. This doesn't match the expectations of abandoned jobs in my opinion, which is that they were never able to be dispatched to a runner (no matching labels), but these jobs never got a chance. They should remain valid and blocked until approved.
Discovered while testing #11125, but unrelated to the behaviour fixed there.
## 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...
- [x] 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
- [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/11145
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 modifies usernames of ActivityPub accounts to use the @example@example.tld
format with an additional optional port component (e.g. @user@example.tld:42).
This allows accounts from ActivityPub servers with more relaxed username
requirements than those of Forgejo's to interact with Forgejo. Forgejo would
also follow a "de facto" standard of ActivityPub implementations.
By separating different information using @'s, we also gain future
opportunities to store more information about ActivityPub accounts internally,
so that we won't have to rely on e.g. the amount of dashes in a username as
my migration currently does.
Continuation of Aravinth's work: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4778
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9254
Reviewed-by: jerger <jerger@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Ellen Εμιλία Άννα Zscheile <fogti@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Co-committed-by: Panagiotis "Ivory" Vasilopoulos <git@n0toose.net>
Fixes#11030.
When a `strategy.matrix` needs to be evaluated on the output of another job, it can become evaluated into an empty set of jobs. In this case, and assuming no other jobs in the run are active, the run should reach a settled state. The logic to check the other jobs in the run and determine if this state has been hit needs to be explicitly added to the job emitter.
To accomplish this change, this action run state logic was extracted out of `UpdateRunJobWithoutNotification` where it could be reused.
## 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...
- [x] 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
- [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/11063
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Fixes#10881
Call the proper function for each repository the user watches, so adjusting the watch count can be done properly.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10882
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: christopher-besch <mail@chris-besch.com>
Co-committed-by: christopher-besch <mail@chris-besch.com>
This PR fixes a number of typos throughout the entire repository. Running https://github.com/crate-ci/typos and then changing all occurrences that I naively deemed "safe enough".
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10753
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
Co-committed-by: Christoph Mewes <christoph@kubermatic.com>
