When issue templates were moved into services in
def4956122, the code was also refactored
and simplified. Unfortunately, that simplification broke the
`/api/v1/{owner}/{repo}/issue_templates` route, because it was
previously using a helper function that ignored invalid templates, and
after the refactor, the function it called *always* returned non-nil as
the second return value. This, in turn, results in the aforementioned
end point always returning an internal server error.
This change restores the previous behaviour of ignoring invalid files
returned by `issue.GetTemplatesFromDefaultBranch`, and adds a few test
cases to exercise the endpoint.
Other users of `GetTemplatesFromDefaultBranch` already ignore the second
return value, or handle it correctly, so no changes are necessary there.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Previously, the repo wiki was hardcoded to use `master` as its branch,
this change makes it possible to use `main` (or something else, governed
by `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`, a setting that already exists and
defaults to `main`).
The way it is done is that a new column is added to the `repository`
table: `wiki_branch`. The migration will make existing repositories
default to `master`, for compatibility's sake, even if they don't have a
Wiki (because it's easier to do that). Newly created repositories will
default to `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH` instead.
The Wiki service was updated to use the branch name stored in the
database, and fall back to the default if it is empty.
Old repositories with Wikis using the older `master` branch will have
the option to do a one-time transition to `main`, available via the
repository settings in the "Danger Zone". This option will only be
available for repositories that have the internal wiki enabled, it is
not empty, and the wiki branch is not `[repository].DEFAULT_BRANCH`.
When migrating a repository with a Wiki, Forgejo will use the same
branch name for the wiki as the source repository did. If that's not the
same as the default, the option to normalize it will be available after
the migration's done.
Additionally, the `/api/v1/{owner}/{repo}` endpoint was updated: it will
now include the wiki branch name in `GET` requests, and allow changing
the wiki branch via `PATCH`.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit d87c526d2a)
- When there's a succesful POST operation, it should return a 201 status
code (which is the status code for succesful created) and additionally
the created object.
- Currently for the `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/tags` endpoint an 200
status code was documented in the OpenAPI specification, while an 201
status code was actually being returned. In this case the code is
correct and the documented status code needs to be adjusted.
- Resolves#2200
(cherry picked from commit a2939116f5)
(cherry picked from commit 22cff41585)
(cherry picked from commit b23a7f27bb)
- The name could be conflucted with the `GET
/user/applications/oauth2/{id}` operation, as it only differed in a
single letter being uppercase. Change it to be
userGetOAuth2Application**s**, as that's also more accurate for this function.
- Resolves#2163
(cherry picked from commit 1891dac547)
(cherry picked from commit 68fceb9b7a)
(cherry picked from commit 7335d6de54)
- Document the correct content types for Git archives. Add code that
actually sets the correct application type for `.zip` and `.tar.gz`.
- When an action (POST/PUT/DELETE method) was successful, an 204 status
code should be returned instead of status code 200.
- Add and adjust integration testing.
- Resolves#2180
- Resolves#2181
(cherry picked from commit 6c8c4512b5)
(cherry picked from commit 3f74bcb14d)
(cherry picked from commit 6ed9057fd7)
Instead of repeating the tests that verify the ID of a comment
is related to the repository of the API endpoint, add the middleware
function commentAssignment() to assign ctx.Comment if the ID of the
comment is verified to be related to the repository.
There already are integration tests for cases of potential unrelated
comment IDs that cover some of the modified endpoints which covers the
commentAssignment() function logic.
* TestAPICommentReactions - GetIssueCommentReactions
* TestAPICommentReactions - PostIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPICommentReactions - DeleteIssueCommentReaction
* TestAPIEditComment - EditIssueComment
* TestAPIDeleteComment - DeleteIssueComment
* TestAPIGetCommentAttachment - GetIssueCommentAttachment
The other modified endpoints do not have tests to verify cases of
potential unrelated comment IDs. They no longer need to because they
no longer implement the logic to enforce this. They however all have
integration tests that verify the commentAssignment() they now rely on
does not introduce a regression.
* TestAPIGetComment - GetIssueComment
* TestAPIListCommentAttachments - ListIssueCommentAttachments
* TestAPICreateCommentAttachment - CreateIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIEditCommentAttachment - EditIssueCommentAttachment
* TestAPIDeleteCommentAttachment - DeleteIssueCommentAttachment
(cherry picked from commit d414376d74)
(cherry picked from commit 09db07aeae)
(cherry picked from commit f44830c3cb)
Conflicts:
modules/context/api.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2249
(cherry picked from commit 9d1bf7be15)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f9)
[GITEA] POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments (squash) do not implicitly create a review
If a comment already exists in a review, the comment is added. If it
is the first comment added to a review, it will implicitly create a
new review instead of adding to the existing one.
The pull_service.CreateCodeComment function is responsibe for this
behavior and it will defer to createCodeComment once the review is
determined, either because it was found or because it was created.
Rename createCodeComment into CreateCodeCommentKnownReviewID to expose
it and change the API endpoint to use it instead. Since the review is
provided by the user and verified to exist already, there is no need
for the logic implemented by CreateCodeComment.
The tests are modified to remove the initial comment from the fixture
because it was creating the false positive. I was verified to fail
without this fix.
(cherry picked from commit 6a555996dc)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a)
Expose the repository flags feature over the API, so the flags can be
managed by a site administrator without using the web API.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit bac9f0225d)
(cherry picked from commit e7f5c1ba14)
(cherry picked from commit 95d9fe19cf)
(cherry picked from commit 7fc51991e4)
