It is possible to change some repo settings (its visibility, and
template status) via `git push` options: `-o repo.private=true`, `-o
repo.template=true`.
Previously, there weren't sufficient permission checks on these, and
anyone who could `git push` to a repository - including via an AGit
workflow! - was able to change either of these settings. To guard
against this, the pre-receive hook will now check if either of these
options are present, and if so, will perform additional permission
checks to ensure that these can only be set by a repository owner or
an administrator. Additionally, changing these settings is disabled for
forks, even for the fork's owner.
There's still a case where the owner of a repository can change the
visibility of it, and it will not propagate to forks (it propagates to
forks when changing the visibility via the API), but that's an
inconsistency, not a security issue.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Agit returned result should be from `ProcReceive` hook but not
`PostReceive` hook. Then for all non-agit pull requests, it will not
check the pull requests for every pushing `refs/pull/%d/head`.
Backport #30104
(cherry picked from commit 6e3aaa997549b83935241e486caf811793c88aea)
Conflicts:
it is implemented differently in Forgejo, just keep the test
in tests/integration/git_push_test.go
- If a branch cannot be renamed due to a protected branch rule, show
this error in the UI instead of throwing an internal server error.
- Add integration test (also simplify the existing one).
- Resolves#2751
Backport #26986 by @norohind
Fix#20175
Current implementation of API does not allow creating pull requests
between branches of the same
repo when you specify *namespace* (owner of the repo) in `head` field in
http request body.
---------
Co-authored-by: norohind <60548839+norohind@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 408c92938ba6f38eea1210cae2c485e1f19d4982)
This should fix#2266.
This has apparently be fixed in `main` https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27798 (but quite a big PR, which was not backported). I should likely push the test to the main branch as well.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2626
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Backport #29430
Thanks to inferenceus : some sort orders on the "explore/users" page
could list users by their lastlogintime/updatetime.
It leaks user's activity unintentionally. This PR makes that page only
use "supported" sort orders.
Removing the "sort orders" could also be a good solution, while IMO at
the moment keeping the "create time" and "name" orders is also fine, in
case some users would like to find a target user in the search result,
the "sort order" might help.
(cherry picked from commit 2b059f493e46b8b0fb52492623e36a8375cb5fbb)
Backport of #2292
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>
(cherry picked from commit be8d16438a)
- Backport of #2507
- The CODEOWNER feature relies on the changed files to determine which
reviewers should be added according to the `CODEOWNER` file.
- The current approach was to 'diff' between the base and head branch,
which seems logical but fail in practice when the pull request is out of
date with the base branch. Therefore it should instead diff between the
head branch and the merge base of the head and base branch, so only the
actual affected files by the pull requests are used, the same approach
is used by the diff of an unmerged pull request.
- Add integration testing (for the feature as well).
- Resolves#2458
(cherry picked from commit fb2795b5bb)
- Backport of #2489
- If the user is searching repositories with an specific topic, adding
any other filter option, such as showing unrelevant repositories or
using another sort Forgejo should remember that 'topic only' was set.
- Adds integration test.
- Resolves#2461
(cherry picked from commit b4360d504c)
It's possible for reviews to not be assiocated with users, when they
were migrated from another forge instance. In the migration code,
there's no sanitization check for author names, so they could contain
HTML tags and thus needs to be properely escaped.
(cherry picked from commit ca798e4cc2)
On the wiki and revisions page, information is shown about the last
commit that modified that wiki page. This includes the time it was last
edited and by whom. Verify it is sanitized.
(cherry picked from commit 565e331238)
Follow-up of #2282 and #2296 (which tried to address #2278)
One of the issue with the previous PR is that when a conversation on the Files tab was marked as "resolved", it would fetch all the comments for that line (even the outdated ones, which should not be shown on this page - except when explicitly activated).
To properly fix this, I have changed `FetchCodeCommentsByLine` to `FetchCodeConversation`. Its role is to fetch all comments related to a given (review, path, line) and reverted my changes in the template (which were based on a misunderstanding).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2306
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Skip a HookEventPullRequestSync event if it has the same CommitSHA as an existing HookEventPullRequest event in the ActionRun table. A HookEventPullRequestSync event must only create an ActionRun if the CommitSHA is different from what it was when the PR was open.
This guards against a race that can happen when the following is done in parallel:
* A commit C is pushed to a repo on branch B
* A pull request with head on branch B
it is then possible that the pull request is created first, successfully. The commit that was just pushed is not known yet but the PR only references the repository and the B branch so it is fine.
A HookEventPullRequest event is sent to the notification queue but not processed immediately.
The commit C is pushed and processed successfully. Since the PR already exists and has a head that matches the branch, the head of the PR is updated with the commit C and a HookEventPullRequestSync event is sent to the notification queue.
The HookEventPullRequest event is processed and since the head of the PR was updated to be commit C, an ActionRun with CommitSHA C is created.
The HookEventPullRequestSync event is then processed and also has a CommitSHA equal to C.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2314
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
(cherry picked from commit 7b4dba3aa0)
Conflicts:
services/actions/notifier_helper.go
tests/integration/actions_trigger_test.go
trivial context conficts
services/actions/main_test.go is different in v1.21
Backport #28935 by @silverwind
The `ToUTF8*` functions were stripping BOM, while BOM is actually valid
in UTF8, so the stripping must be optional depending on use case. This
does:
- Add a options struct to all `ToUTF8*` functions, that by default will
strip BOM to preserve existing behaviour
- Remove `ToUTF8` function, it was dead code
- Rename `ToUTF8WithErr` to `ToUTF8`
- Preserve BOM in Monaco Editor
- Remove a unnecessary newline in the textarea value. Browsers did
ignore it, it seems but it's better not to rely on this behaviour.
Fixes: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28743
Related: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/6716 which seems to
have once introduced a mechanism that strips and re-adds the BOM, but
from what I can tell, this mechanism was removed at some point after
that PR.
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
(cherry picked from commit b8e6cffd31)
Backport https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28726 by @fuxiaohei
Fix Uploaded artifacts should be overwritten
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/28549
When upload different content to uploaded artifact, it checks that
content size is not match in db record with previous artifact size, then
the new artifact is refused.
Now if it finds uploading content size is not matching db record when
receiving chunks, it updates db records to follow the latest size value.
(cherry picked from commit 7f0ce2dfc7)
Backport #28877 by @KN4CK3R
Fixes#28875
If `RequireSignInView` is enabled, the ghost user has no access rights.
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
(cherry picked from commit b7c944b9e4)
Backport of #2143
This solves two bugs. One bug is that due to the JOIN with the
`forgejo_blocked_users` table, duplicated users were generated if a user
had more than one user blocked, this lead to receiving more than one
entry in the actions table. The other bug is that if a user blocked more
than one user, it would still receive a action entry by a
blocked user, because the SQL query would not exclude the other
duplicated users that was generated by the JOIN.
The new solution is somewhat non-optimal in my eyes, but it's better
than rewriting the query to become a potential perfomance blocker (usage
of WHERE IN, which cannot be rewritten to a JOIN). It simply removes the
watchers after it was retrieved by the SQL query.
(cherry picked from commit c63c00b39b)
- Backport of #1981
- When the user is not found in `reloadparam`, early return when the
user is not found to avoid calling `IsUserVisibleToViewer` which in turn
avoids causing a NPE.
- This fixes the case that a 500 error and 404 error is shown on the
same page.
- Add integration test for non-existant user RSS.
- Regression by c6366089df
(cherry picked from commit f0e0696278)
(cherry picked from commit 75d8066908)
(cherry picked from commit 4d0a1e0637)
(cherry picked from commit 5f40a485da)
(cherry picked from commit c4cb7812e3)
Backport #26745Fixes#26548
This PR refactors the rendering of markup links. The old code uses
`strings.Replace` to change some urls while the new code uses more
context to decide which link should be generated.
The added tests should ensure the same output for the old and new
behaviour (besides the bug).
We may need to refactor the rendering a bit more to make it clear how
the different helper methods render the input string. There are lots of
options (resolve links / images / mentions / git hashes / emojis / ...)
but you don't really know what helper uses which options. For example,
we currently support images in the user description which should not be
allowed I think:
<details>
<summary>Profile</summary>
https://try.gitea.io/KN4CK3R
</details>
(cherry picked from commit 022552d5b6)
Backport #28140 by @earl-warren
- Make use of the `form-fetch-action` for the merge button, which will
automatically prevent the action from happening multiple times and show
a nice loading indicator as user feedback while the merge request is
being processed by the server.
- Adjust the merge PR code to JSON response as this is required for the
`form-fetch-action` functionality.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/774
- Likely resolves the cause of
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1688#issuecomment-1313044
(cherry picked from commit 4ec64c19507caefff7ddaad722b1b5792b97cc5a)
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <109468362+earl-warren@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
(cherry picked from commit fbf29f29b5)
Backport #28716 by wxiaoguang
Gitea prefers to use relative URLs in code (to make multiple domain work
for some users)
So it needs to use `toAbsoluteUrl` to generate a full URL when click
"Reference in New Issues"
And add some comments in the test code
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit def178ce32)
Conflicts:
tests/integration/issue_test.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2158
Backport #28590 by @lunny
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28547#issuecomment-1867740842
Since https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2383 merged, xorm now supports
UPDATE JOIN.
To keep consistent from different databases, xorm use
`engine.Join().Update`, but the actural generated SQL are different
between different databases.
For MySQL, it's `UPDATE talbe1 JOIN table2 ON join_conditions SET xxx
Where xxx`.
For MSSQL, it's `UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM TABLE1, TABLE2 WHERE
join_conditions`.
For SQLITE per https://www.sqlite.org/lang_update.html, sqlite support
`UPDATE table1 SET xxx FROM table2 WHERE join conditions` from
3.33.0(2020-8-14).
POSTGRES is the same as SQLITE.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 18da3f8483)
- The current architecture is inherently insecure, because you can
construct the 'secret' cookie value with values that are available in
the database. Thus provides zero protection when a database is
dumped/leaked.
- This patch implements a new architecture that's inspired from: [Paragonie Initiative](https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies).
- Integration testing is added to ensure the new mechanism works.
- Removes a setting, because it's not used anymore.
(cherry picked from commit eff097448b)
[GITEA] rework long-term authentication (squash) add migration
Reminder: the migration is run via integration tests as explained
in the commit "[DB] run all Forgejo migrations in integration tests"
(cherry picked from commit 4accf7443c)
(cherry picked from commit 99d06e344ebc3b50bafb2ac4473dd95f057d1ddc)
(cherry picked from commit d8bc98a8f0)
(cherry picked from commit 6404845df9)
(cherry picked from commit 72bdd4f3b9)
(cherry picked from commit 4b01bb0ce8)
(cherry picked from commit c26ac31816)
(cherry picked from commit 8d2dab94a6)
Conflicts:
routers/web/auth/auth.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2158
Backport #28587, the only conflict is the test file.
The CORS code has been unmaintained for long time, and the behavior is
not correct.
This PR tries to improve it. The key point is written as comment in
code. And add more tests.
Fix#28515Fix#27642Fix#17098
(cherry picked from commit 7a2786ca6c)
In the `TestDatabaseMissingABranch` testcase, make sure that the
branches are in sync between the db and git before deleting a branch via
git, then compare the branch count from the web UI, making sure that it
returns an out-of-sync value first, and the correct one after another
sync.
This is currently tested by scraping the UI, and relies on the fact that
the branch counter is out of date before syncing. If that issue gets
resolved, we'll have to adjust the test to verify the sync another way.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
This tests the scenario reported in Codeberg/Community#1408: a branch
that is recorded in the database, but missing on disk was causing
internal server errors. With recent changes, that is no longer the case,
the error is logged and then ignored.
This test case tests this behaviour, that the repo's branches page on
the web UI functions even if the git branch is missing.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
- Backport of #2134
- It's possible that `canSoftDeleteContentHistory` is called without
`ctx.Doer` being set, such as an anonymous user requesting the
`/content-history/detail` endpoint.
- Add a simple condition to always set to `canSoftDelete` to false if an
anonymous user is requesting this, this avoids a panic in the code that
assumes `ctx.Doer` is set.
- Added integration testing.
(cherry picked from commit 0b5db0dcc6)
- Backport of #2100
- Make the reference URL in the "Reference in New issue" feature
absolute again as it wouldn't render as a link otherwise.
- Adds integration test.
- Regression by 769be877f2
- Resolves#2012
(cherry picked from commit c74bae2897)
- Backport of #2094
- It's possible that `PageIsDiff` is set but not `Commit` resulting in a
NPE in the template. This can happen when the requested commit doesn't exist.
- Regression of c802c46a9b &
5743d7cb5b
- Added 'hacky' integration test.
(cherry picked from commit 8db2d5e4a7)
- When a user requests a archive of a non-existant commit
`git.ErrNotExist` is returned, but was not gracefully handled resulting
in a 500 error.
- Doesn't exist in v1.22 due to it being refactored away in
cbf923e87b
- Adds integration test.
- The transaction in combination with Git push was causing deadlocks if
you had the `push_update` queue set to `immediate`. This was the root
cause of slow integration tests in CI.
- Remove the sync branch code as this is already being done in the Git
post-receive hook.
- Add tests to proof the branch models are in sync even with this code
removed.
Backport of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1962
(cherry picked from commit a064065cb9)
Fix#28056
Backport #28361
This PR will check whether the repo has zero branch when pushing a
branch. If that, it means this repository hasn't been synced.
The reason caused that is after user upgrade from v1.20 -> v1.21, he
just push branches without visit the repository user interface. Because
all repositories routers will check whether a branches sync is necessary
but push has not such check.
For every repository, it has two states, synced or not synced. If there
is zero branch for a repository, then it will be assumed as non-sync
state. Otherwise, it's synced state. So if we think it's synced, we just
need to update branch/insert new branch. Otherwise do a full sync. So
that, for every push, there will be almost no extra load added. It's
high performance than yours.
For the implementation, we in fact will try to update the branch first,
if updated success with affect records > 0, then all are done. Because
that means the branch has been in the database. If no record is
affected, that means the branch does not exist in database. So there are
two possibilities. One is this is a new branch, then we just need to
insert the record. Another is the branches haven't been synced, then we
need to sync all the branches into database.
(cherry picked from commit 87db4a47c8)
