Use zero instead of 9999-12-31 for deadline
Fix#32291
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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>
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>
This PR split the `Board` into two parts. One is the struct has been
renamed to `Column` and the second we have a `Template Type`.
But to make it easier to review, this PR will not change the database
schemas, they are just renames. The database schema changes could be in
future PRs.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Fix#30872
We will assume the database is consistent before executing the
migration. So the indexes should exist. Removing `IF EXIST` then is safe
enough.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
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.
Noteable additions:
- `redefines-builtin-id` forbid variable names that shadow go builtins
- `empty-lines` remove unnecessary empty lines that `gofumpt` does not
remove for some reason
- `superfluous-else` eliminate more superfluous `else` branches
Rules are also sorted alphabetically and I cleaned up various parts of
`.golangci.yml`.
The target_url is necessary for the UI, but missed in
commit_status_summary table. This PR fix it.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This PR adds a new table named commit status summary to reduce queries
from the commit status table. After this change, commit status summary
table will be used for the final result, commit status table will be for
details.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/29874#discussion_r1542227686
- The migration of v292 will miss many projects. These projects will
have no default board. This PR introduced a new migration number and
removed v292 migration.
- This PR also added the missed transactions on project-related
operations.
- Only `SetDefaultBoard` will remove duplicated defaults but not in
`GetDefaultBoard`
On creation of an empty project (no template) a default board will be
created instead of falling back to the uneditable pseudo-board.
Every project now has to have exactly one default boards. As a
consequence, you cannot unset a board as default, instead you have to
set another board as default. Existing projects will be modified using a
cron job, additionally this check will run every midnight by default.
Deleting the default board is not allowed, you have to set another board
as default to do it.
Fixes#29873Fixes#14679 along the way
Fixes#29853
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
This PR do some performance optimzations.
- [x] Add `index` for the column `comment_id` of `Attachment` table to
accelerate query from the database.
- [x] Remove unnecessary database queries when viewing issues. Before
some conditions which id = 0 will be sent to the database
- [x] Remove duplicated load posters
- [x] Batch loading attachements, isread of comments on viewing issue
---------
Co-authored-by: Zettat123 <zettat123@gmail.com>
Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen
only in one place.
---
## Current webhook flow
1. An event happens
2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is
added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook
type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request
This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3.
This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain.
Updated webhook flow with this PR:
1. An event happens
2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the
webhook type) to make an HTTP request
So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3)
which should be much more robust.
## Consequences of the refactor
- the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the
pre-processed body was stored)
- to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a
`payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been
pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event)
So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an
http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in
multiple places, like currently).
Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task
queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for
instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook.
As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be
substantially smaller:
- no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go`
- minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook
to the map)
- no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this
refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
The tests on migration tests failed but CI reports successfully
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/actions/runs/7364373807/job/20044685969#step:8:141
This PR will fix the bug on migration v283 and also the CI hidden
behaviour.
The reason is on the Makefile
`GITEA_ROOT="$(CURDIR)" GITEA_CONF=tests/mysql.ini $(GO) test
$(GOTESTFLAGS) -tags='$(TEST_TAGS)' $(MIGRATE_TEST_PACKAGES)` will
return the error exit code.
But
`for pkg in $(shell $(GO) list
code.gitea.io/gitea/models/migrations/...); do \
GITEA_ROOT="$(CURDIR)" GITEA_CONF=tests/mysql.ini $(GO) test
$(GOTESTFLAGS) -tags '$(TEST_TAGS)' $$pkg; \
done`
will not work.
This also fix#29602
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>
This resolves a problem I encountered while updating gitea from 1.20.4
to 1.21. For some reason (correct or otherwise) there are some values in
`repository.size` that are NULL in my gitea database which cause this
migration to fail due to the NOT NULL constraints.
Log snippet (excuse the escape characters)
```
ESC[36mgitea |ESC[0m 2023-12-04T03:52:28.573122395Z 2023/12/04 03:52:28 ...ations/migrations.go:641:Migrate() [I] Migration[263]: Add git_size and lfs_size columns to repository table
ESC[36mgitea |ESC[0m 2023-12-04T03:52:28.608705544Z 2023/12/04 03:52:28 routers/common/db.go:36:InitDBEngine() [E] ORM engine initialization attempt #3/10 failed. Error: migrate: migration[263]: Add git_size and lfs_size columns to repository table failed: NOT NULL constraint failed: repository.git_size
```
I assume this should be reasonably safe since `repository.git_size` has
a default value of 0 but I don't know if that value being 0 in the odd
situation where `repository.size == NULL` has any problematic
consequences.
Closes#27455
> The mechanism responsible for long-term authentication (the 'remember
me' cookie) uses a weak construction technique. It will hash the user's
hashed password and the rands value; it will then call the secure cookie
code, which will encrypt the user's name with the computed hash. If one
were able to dump the database, they could extract those two values to
rebuild that cookie and impersonate a user. That vulnerability exists
from the date the dump was obtained until a user changed their password.
>
> To fix this security issue, the cookie could be created and verified
using a different technique such as the one explained at
https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies.
The PR removes the now obsolete setting `COOKIE_USERNAME`.
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/27097:
- `gitea` theme is renamed to `gitea-light`
- `arc-green` theme is renamed to `gitea-dark`
- `auto` theme is renamed to `gitea-auto`
I put both themes in separate CSS files, removing all colors from the
base CSS. Existing users will be migrated to the new theme names. The
dark theme recolor will follow in a separate PR.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
1. If there are existing custom themes with the names `gitea-light` or
`gitea-dark`, rename them before this upgrade and update the `theme`
column in the `user` table for each affected user.
2. The theme in `<html>` has moved from `class="theme-name"` to
`data-theme="name"`, existing customizations that depend on should be
updated.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This PR reduces the complexity of the system setting system.
It only needs one line to introduce a new option, and the option can be
used anywhere out-of-box.
It is still high-performant (and more performant) because the config
values are cached in the config system.
This fixes a performance bottleneck. It was discovered by Codeberg.
Every where query on that table (which has grown big over time) uses
this column, but there is no index on it.
See this part of the log which was posted on Matrix:
```
2023/09/10 00:52:01 ...rs/web/repo/issue.go:1446:ViewIssue() [W] [Slow SQL Query] UPDATE `issue_user` SET is_read=? WHERE uid=? AND issue_id=? [true x y] - 51.395434887s
2023/09/10 00:52:01 ...rs/web/repo/issue.go:1447:ViewIssue() [E] ReadBy: Error 1205 (HY000): Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction
2023/09/10 00:52:01 ...eb/routing/logger.go:102:func1() [I] router: completed GET /Codeberg/Community/issues/1201 for [::ffff:xxx]:0, 500 Internal Server Error in 52384.2ms @ repo/issue.go:1256(repo.ViewIssue)
```
Lunny Xiao