When writing the release blog, it is really annoying and time-consuming
to re-discover and write down how a feature behaves and capture a
screenshot of it, for every single feature merged since the last
release.
This should not be the responsibility of maintainers, but rather of the
person implementing a feature in the first place.
They know best how to use the feature and how to gather screenshots for
it.
Similarly for breaking changes and their effects.
As such, let's require everything to be up-to-date and easily
understandable before merging features or breaking changes.
Hi,
This PR fixes#27988. The use of `path.join`(which uses `/` as the file
separator) to construct paths and comparing them with paths constructed
using `filepath.join`(which uses platform specific file separator) is
the root cause of this issue.
The desired behavior is to ignore attachments when dumping data
directory. Due to the what's mentioned above, the function
`addRecursiveExclude` is not actually ignoring the attachments directory
and is being written to the archive. The attachment directory is again
added to the archive (with different file separator as mentioned in the
issue) causing a duplicate entry on windows.
The solution is to use `filepath.join` in `addResursiveExclude` to
construct `currentAbsPath`.
Changed behavior to calculate package quota limit using package `creator
ID` instead of `owner ID`.
Currently, users are allowed to create an unlimited number of
organizations, each of which has its own package limit quota, resulting
in the ability for users to have unlimited package space in different
organization scopes. This fix will calculate package quota based on
`package version creator ID` instead of `package version owner ID`
(which might be organization), so that users are not allowed to take
more space than configured package settings.
Also, there is a side case in which users can publish packages to a
specific package version, initially published by different user, taking
that user package size quota. Version in fix should be better because
the total amount of space is limited to the quota for users sharing the
same organization scope.
System users (Ghost, ActionsUser, etc) have a negative id and may be the
author of a comment, either because it was created by a now deleted user
or via an action using a transient token.
The GetPossibleUserByID function has special cases related to system
users and will not fail if given a negative id.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1425
(cherry picked from commit 6a2d2fa24390116d31ae2507c0a93d423f690b7b)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1458
Some mails such as issue creation mails are missing the reply-to-comment
address. This PR fixes that and specifies which comment types should get
a reply-possibility.
## Bug in Gitea
I ran into this bug when I accidentally used the wrong redirect URL for
the oauth2 provider when using mssql. But the oauth2 provider still got
added.
Most of the time, we use `Delete(&some{id: some.id})` or
`In(condition).Delete(&some{})`, which specify the conditions. But the
function uses `Delete(source)` when `source.Cfg` is a `TEXT` field and
not empty. This will cause xorm `Delete` function not working in mssql.
61ff91f960/models/auth/source.go (L234-L240)
## Reason
Because the `TEXT` field can not be compared in mssql, xorm doesn't
support it according to [this
PR](https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2062)
[related
code](b23798dc98/internal/statements/statement.go (L552-L558))
in xorm
```go
if statement.dialect.URI().DBType == schemas.MSSQL && (col.SQLType.Name == schemas.Text ||
col.SQLType.IsBlob() || col.SQLType.Name == schemas.TimeStampz) {
if utils.IsValueZero(fieldValue) {
continue
}
return nil, fmt.Errorf("column %s is a TEXT type with data %#v which cannot be as compare condition", col.Name, fieldValue.Interface())
}
}
```
When using the `Delete` function in xorm, the non-empty fields will
auto-set as conditions(perhaps some special fields are not?). If `TEXT`
field is not empty, xorm will return an error. I only found this usage
after searching, but maybe there is something I missing.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
To improve maintainability, this PR:
1. Rename `web_src/js/modules/aria` to `web_src/js/modules/fomantic`
(the code there are all for aria of fomantic)
2. Move api/transition related code to
`web_src/js/modules/fomantic/api.js` and
`web_src/js/modules/fomantic/transition.js`
No logic is changed.
1. `linter.lang-version` is deprecated in favor of `run.go`
2. `run.go` defaults to the version in `go.mod` as per
[docs](https://golangci-lint.run/usage/configuration/#run-configuration):
```yaml
# Define the Go version limit.
# Mainly related to generics support since go1.18.
# Default: use Go version from the go.mod file, fallback on the env var `GOVERSION`, fallback on 1.18
go: '1.19'
```
So in summary, we don't need these versions in the file as long as we
keep the version in go.mod bumped.
When an assignee changed event comment is rendered, most of it is
guarded behind the assignee ID not being 0. However, if it is 0, that
results in quite broken rendering for that comment and the next one.
This can happen, for example, when repository data imported from outside
of Gitea is incomplete.
This PR makes sure comments with an assignee ID of 0 are not rendered at
all.
---
Screenshot before:
<img width="272" alt="Bildschirmfoto 2023-11-05 um 20 12 18"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/42910/7d629d76-fee4-4fe5-9e3a-bf524050cead">
The comments in this screenshot are:
1. A regular text comment
2. A user being unassigned
3. A user being assigned
4. The title of the PR being changed
Comments 2 and 3 are rendered without any text, which indents the next
comment and does not leave enough vertical space.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
The bug has been fixed for several months in the
`docker/build-push-action`
The fix commit is
[d8823bfaed](d8823bfaed)
as the Gitea Actions Doc mentioned too.
Fixes#27819
We have support for two factor logins with the normal web login and with
basic auth. For basic auth the two factor check was implemented at three
different places and you need to know that this check is necessary. This
PR moves the check into the basic auth itself.
KazzmanK