- [x] Move `CreateRepositoryByExample` to service layer
- [x] Move `AddCollabrator` to service layer
- [x] Add a new parameter for `AddCollabrator` so that changing mode
immediately after that will become unnecessary.
From testing, I found that issue posters and users with repository write
access are able to edit attachment names in a way that circumvents the
instance-level file extension restrictions using the edit attachment
APIs. This snapshot adds checks for these endpoints.
1. clarify the "filepath" could(should) contain "{ref}"
2. remove unclear RepoRefLegacy and RepoRefAny, use RepoRefUnknown to guess
3. by the way, avoid using AppURL
This introduces a new flag `BlockAdminMergeOverride` on the branch
protection rules that prevents admins/repo owners from bypassing branch
protection rules and merging without approvals or failing status checks.
Fixes#17131
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
If the assign the pull request review to a team, it did not show the
members of the team in the "requested_reviewers" field, so the field was
null. As a solution, I added the team members to the array.
fix#31764
Document return type for the endpoints that fetch specific files from a
repository. This allows the swagger generated code to read the returned
data.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fixes#22722
### Problem
Currently, it is not possible to force push to a branch with branch
protection rules in place. There are often times where this is necessary
(CI workflows/administrative tasks etc).
The current workaround is to rename/remove the branch protection,
perform the force push, and then reinstate the protections.
### Solution
Provide an additional section in the branch protection rules to allow
users to specify which users with push access can also force push to the
branch. The default value of the rule will be set to `Disabled`, and the
UI is intuitive and very similar to the `Push` section.
It is worth noting in this implementation that allowing force push does
not override regular push access, and both will need to be enabled for a
user to force push.
This applies to manual force push to a remote, and also in Gitea UI
updating a PR by rebase (which requires force push)
This modifies the `BranchProtection` API structs to add:
- `enable_force_push bool`
- `enable_force_push_whitelist bool`
- `force_push_whitelist_usernames string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_teams string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_deploy_keys bool`
### Updated Branch Protection UI:
<img width="943" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/7491899c-d816-45d5-be84-8512abd156bf">
### Pull Request `Update branch by Rebase` option enabled with source
branch `test` being a protected branch:
<img width="1038" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/57ead13e-9006-459f-b83c-7079e6f4c654">
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Parse base path and tree path so that media links can be correctly
created with /media/.
Resolves#31294
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR adds some fields to the gitea webhook payload that
[openproject](https://www.openproject.org/) expects to exists in order
to process the webhooks.
These fields do exists in Github's webhook payload so adding them makes
Gitea's native webhook more compatible towards Github's.
Before, we would just throw 500 if a user passes an attachment that is
not an allowed type. This commit catches this error and throws a 422
instead since this should be considered a validation error.
Misspell 0.5.0 supports passing a csv file to extend the list of
misspellings, so I added some common ones from the codebase. There is at
least one typo in a API response so we need to decided whether to revert
that and then likely remove the dict entry.
- Add endpoint to list repository action secrets in API routes
- Implement `ListActionsSecrets` function to retrieve action secrets
from the database
- Update Swagger documentation to include the new
`/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/secrets` endpoint
- Add `actions` package import and define new routes for actions,
secrets, variables, and runners in `api.go`.
- Refactor action-related API functions into `Action` struct methods in
`org/action.go` and `repo/action.go`.
- Remove `actionAPI` struct and related functions, replacing them with
`NewAction()` calls.
- Rename `variables.go` to `action.go` in `org` directory.
- Delete `runners.go` and `secrets.go` in both `org` and `repo`
directories, consolidating their content into `action.go`.
- Update copyright year and add new imports in `org/action.go`.
- Implement `API` interface in `services/actions/interface.go` for
action-related methods.
- Remove individual action-related functions and replace them with
methods on the `Action` struct in `repo/action.go`.
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Using the API, a user's _source_id_ can be set in the _CreateUserOption_
model, but the field is not returned in the _User_ model.
This PR updates the _User_ model to include the field _source_id_ (The
ID of the Authentication Source).
- Add new `Compare` struct to represent comparison between two commits
- Introduce new API endpoint `/compare/*` to get commit comparison
information
- Create new file `repo_compare.go` with the `Compare` struct definition
- Add new file `compare.go` in `routers/api/v1/repo` to handle
comparison logic
- Add new file `compare.go` in `routers/common` to define `CompareInfo`
struct
- Refactor `ParseCompareInfo` function to use `common.CompareInfo`
struct
- Update Swagger documentation to include the new API endpoint for
commit comparison
- Remove duplicate `CompareInfo` struct from
`routers/web/repo/compare.go`
- Adjust base path in Swagger template to be relative (`/api/v1`)
GitHub API
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/commits?apiVersion=2022-11-28#compare-two-commits
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Resolves#29965.
---
Manually tested this by:
- Following the
[installation](https://docs.gitea.com/next/installation/install-with-docker#basics)
guide (but built a local Docker image instead)
- Creating 2 users, one who is the `Owner` of a newly-created repository
and the other a `Collaborator`
- Had the `Collaborator` create a PR that the `Owner` reviews
- `Collaborator` resolves conversation and `Owner` merges PR
And with this change we see that we can no longer see re-request review
button for the `Owner`:
<img width="1351" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-25 at 12 39 18 AM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/60799661/bcd9c579-3cf7-474f-a51e-b436fe1a39a4">
Caused by: #23106
Fix:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/actions/runs/8274650046/job/22640335697
1. Delete `UserBadgeList` in `options.go`, because it wasn't used. (The
struct defined in `options.go` is the struct used to parse the request
body)
2. Move `BadgeList` struct under `routers/api/v1/swagger` folder which
response should be defined in.
Part of #23318
Add menu in repo settings to allow for repo admin to decide not just if
projects are enabled or disabled per repo, but also which kind of
projects (repo-level/owner-level) are enabled. If repo projects
disabled, don't show the projects tab.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Add new option:
`visible`: witch can hide a specific field of the form or the created
content afterwards
It is a string array witch can contain `form` and `content`. If only
`form` is present, it wont show up in the created issue afterwards and
the other way around. By default it sets both except for markdown
As they are optional and github don't have any similar thing, it is non
breaking and also do not conflict with it.
With this you can:
- define "post issue creation" elements like a TODO list to track an
issue state
- make sure to have a checkbox that reminds the user to check for a
thing but dont have it in the created issue afterwards
- define markdown for the created issue (was the downside of using yaml
instead of md in the past)
- ...
## Demo
```yaml
name: New Contribution
description: External Contributor creating a pull
body:
- type: checkboxes
id: extern-todo
visible: [form]
attributes:
label: Contribution Guidelines
options:
- label: I checked there exist no similar feature to be extended
required: true
- label: I did read the CONTRIBUTION.MD
required: true
- type: checkboxes
id: intern-todo
visible: [content]
attributes:
label: Maintainer Check-List
options:
- label: Does this pull follow the KISS principe
- label: Checked if internal bord was notifyed
# ....
```
[Demo
Video](https://cloud.obermui.de/s/tm34fSAbJp9qw9z/download/vid-20240220-152751.mkv)
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
---------
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Adds a new API `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/commits/{sha}/pull` that allows
you to get the merged PR associated to a commit.
---------
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Follow #29165.
* Introduce JSONTemplate to help to render JSON templates
* Introduce JSEscapeSafe for templates. Now only use `{{ ... |
JSEscape}}` instead of `{{ ... | JSEscape | Safe}}`
* Simplify "UserLocationMapURL" useage
With this option, it is possible to require a linear commit history with
the following benefits over the next best option `Rebase+fast-forward`:
The original commits continue existing, with the original signatures
continuing to stay valid instead of being rewritten, there is no merge
commit, and reverting commits becomes easier.
Closes#24906
Fixes#27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Calvin K