* reuse deleteIssueComment by adding the commentType parameter
* ensure tests start with a PR with no random reviews from fixtures
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 5b90ab77f67e4c0ac17d8b1101453d7790fa45d2)
(cherry picked from commit 28ecd6f5a67891788ad4d989311050df55deb008)
(cherry picked from commit 24870cf133153f0fdefb76df58fe074ae6aef7c0)
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 d414376d749041da1be288c02fdaa24fddeafd5c)
(cherry picked from commit 09db07aeaed167edc66cb832b0aa54b31d14f0d8)
(cherry picked from commit f44830c3cba0b9416505a2b0b560cfa096ffeb7c)
Conflicts:
modules/context/api.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2249
(cherry picked from commit 9d1bf7be15420ce4ca6e92a8bd048d483172de3b)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2109
(cherry picked from commit 8b4ba3dce7fc99fa328444ef27383dccca49c237)
(cherry picked from commit 196edea0f972a9a027c4cacb9df36330cf676d2f)
[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 6a555996dca6ba71c65818e14ab0eeafa1af6dc2)
(cherry picked from commit b173a0ccee6cc0dadf40ec55e5d88987314c1cc4)
(cherry picked from commit 838ab9740a6b022676103bcb3a7d168b501006e1)
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 bac9f0225d47e159afa90e5bbea9562cbc860dae)
(cherry picked from commit e7f5c1ba141ac7f8c7834b5048d0ffd3ce50900b)
(cherry picked from commit 95d9fe19cf3ed5787855ac2a442d29104498aa36)
(cherry picked from commit 7fc51991e405ea8d44fd6b4b4de13ad65da63ae7)
- Switch the supported schemas for the Swagger API around, such that
https is the first one listed. This ensures that when the Swagger API is
used it will default to the https schema, which is likely the schema you
want to use in the majority of the cases.
- Resolves#1895
BREAKING CHANGE NOTICE:
If you are using the Swagger API JSON directly to communicate with the
Forgejo API, the library you are using may be using the first schema
defined in the JSON file (e.g. https://code.forgejo.org/swagger.v1.json)
to construct the request url, this used to be `http` but has now changed
to `https`. This can cause failures if you want to send the swagger
request over `http` (and there is no HTTPS redirection configured).
(cherry picked from commit 81e5f438868192e9cca46824ceb3db787bdd8629)
(cherry picked from commit d847469ea278e77ed4fd6147dd54025ce222ebc9)
(cherry picked from commit 96e75e1d5ca97cd4c668fc60d444dc91c98e83a6)
(cherry picked from commit 65baa6426109403f0b8a779b061f7733d8034ba7)
(cherry picked from commit cd3e0a74e6a7bb90da6f069b7fea0796d5f3d775)
(cherry picked from commit a3127e90b21660d1d7efb6dd536f5fb5619d3307)
(cherry picked from commit 2b22272dc588ee6c2c4081b087f5b87b82ac52c8)
(cherry picked from commit 7363790592b10c4fc52266fd0c33ed79454cd276)
(cherry picked from commit 432b9a4451997742df50d3db33285f2dd5ea0bef)
This field adds the possibility to set the update date when modifying
an issue through the API.
A 'NoAutoDate' in-memory field is added in the Issue struct.
If the update_at field is set, NoAutoDate is set to true and the
Issue's UpdatedUnix field is filled.
That information is passed down to the functions that actually updates
the database, which have been modified to not auto update dates if
requested.
A guard is added to the 'EditIssue' API call, to checks that the
udpate_at date is between the issue's creation date and the current
date (to avoid 'malicious' changes). It also limits the new feature
to project's owners and admins.
(cherry picked from commit c524d33402c76bc4cccea2806f289e08a009baae)
Add a SetIssueUpdateDate() function in services/issue.go
That function is used by some API calls to set the NoAutoDate and
UpdatedUnix fields of an Issue if an updated_at date is provided.
(cherry picked from commit f061caa6555e0c9e922ee1e73dd2e4337360e9fe)
Add an updated_at field to the API calls related to Issue's Labels.
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's labels.
(cherry picked from commit ea36cf80f58f0ab20c565a8f5d063b90fd741f97)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's content, and is set as the
asset creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 96150971ca31b97e97e84d5f5eb95a177cc44e2e)
Checking Issue changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPIEditIssueWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 4926a5d7a28581003545256632213bf4136b193d)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment creation
The update date is used as the comment creation date, and is applied to
the issue as the update creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 76c8faecdc6cba48ca4fe07d1a916d1f1a4b37b4)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment edition
The update date is used as the comment update date, and is applied to
the issue as an update date.
(cherry picked from commit cf787ad7fdb8e6273fdc35d7b5cc164b400207e9)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for comment's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the comment, and is set as the asset
creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 1e4ff424d39db7a4256cd9abf9c58b8d3e1b5c14)
Checking Comment changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPICreateCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit da932152f1deb3039a399516a51c8b6757059c91)
Pettier code to set the update time of comments
Now uses sess.AllCols().NoAutoToime().SetExpr("updated_unix", ...)
XORM is smart enough to compose one single SQL UPDATE which all
columns + updated_unix.
(cherry picked from commit 1f6a42808dd739c0c2e49e6b7ae2967f120f43c2)
Issue edition: Keep the max of the milestone and issue update dates.
When editing an issue via the API, an updated_at date can be provided.
If the EditIssue call changes the issue's milestone, the milestone's
update date is to be changed accordingly, but only with a greater
value.
This ensures that a milestone's update date is the max of all issue's
update dates.
(cherry picked from commit 8f22ea182e6b49e933dc6534040160dd739ff18a)
Rewrite the 'AutoDate' tests using subtests
Also add a test to check the permissions to set a date, and a test
to check update dates on milestones.
The tests related to 'AutoDate' are:
- TestAPIEditIssueAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueMilestoneAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 961fd13c551b3e50040acb7c914a00ead92de63f)
(cherry picked from commit d52f4eea44692ee773010cb66a69a603663947d5)
(cherry picked from commit 3540ea2a43155ca8cf5ab1a4a246babfb829db16)
Conflicts:
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1415
(cherry picked from commit 56720ade008c09122d825959171aa5346d645987)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_label.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1462
(cherry picked from commit 47c78927d6c7e7a50298fa67efad1e73723a0981)
(cherry picked from commit 2030f3b965cde401976821083c3250b404954ecc)
(cherry picked from commit f02aeb76981cd688ceaf6613f142a8a725be1437)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_attachment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1575
(cherry picked from commit d072525b35e44faf7ff87143c0e52b8ba8a625c8)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3df75ac3ffa30f42d398e22995ada5e7)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec788b54afd9da5b9193ce06ee8ec562b)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd01c7ddc65d8b0f326f9c19cb53b58e)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) apply the 'update_at' value to the cross-ref comments (#1676)
[this is a follow-up to PR #764]
When a comment of issue A referencing issue B is added with a forced 'updated_at' date, that date has to be applied to the comment created in issue B.
-----
Comment:
While trying my 'RoundUp migration script', I found that this case was forgotten in PR #764 - my apologies...
I'll try to write a functional test, base on models/issues/issue_xref_test.go
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1676
Co-authored-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
Co-committed-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
(cherry picked from commit ac4f727f63a2dd746dd84a31ebf7f70d5b5d7c52)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9010ba8cdca0e0f37f765f8800e9fe1)
(cherry picked from commit 77ba6be1dab4f6f3678d79a394da56e6447ebbe1)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8337b5c442cfd72d97597c2089e776f42828b7)
(cherry picked from commit 1d689eb686f0f7df09c7861b3faf9d8683cb933b)
(cherry picked from commit 511c519c875a4c4e65c02ef0c4e3b941f4da4371)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b4a8f610837d34844bb79cda1360ab23b6b1c)
(cherry picked from commit fdd4da111c449322901a0acf6d0857eac4716581)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) do not use token= query param
See https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/33439b733a
(cherry picked from commit c5139a75b9e4af612a628171bd4f63a24860c272)
(cherry picked from commit c7b572c35d3e9e22017fd74045bcdc1109bd06df)
(cherry picked from commit aec7503ff6dd177980f3d9f367122ffc2fec8986)
(cherry picked from commit 87c65f2a490faeccb85088fa0981dd50f7199eb8)
(cherry picked from commit bd47ee33c20e53ae616a7e53d63c3b51809585fb)
(cherry picked from commit f3dbd90a747c14fb1b5b4271db6c10abbf86d586)
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
## Changes
- Add deprecation warning to `Token` and `AccessToken` authentication
methods in swagger.
- Add deprecation warning header to API response. Example:
```
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Warning: token and access_token API authentication is deprecated
...
```
- Add setting `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` to reject query string auth
tokens entirely. Default is `false`
## Next steps
- `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` should be true in a subsequent release and
the methods should be removed in swagger
- `DISABLE_QUERY_AUTH_TOKEN` should be removed and the implementation of
the auth methods in question should be removed
## Open questions
- Should there be further changes to the swagger documentation?
Deprecation is not yet supported for security definitions (coming in
[OpenAPI Spec version
3.2.0](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/issues/2506))
- Should the API router logger sanitize urls that use `token` or
`access_token`? (This is obviously an insufficient solution on its own)
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
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.
This feature was removed by #22219 to avoid possible CSRF attack.
This PR takes reverseproxy auth for API back but with default disabled.
To prevent possbile CSRF attack, the responsibility will be the
reverseproxy but not Gitea itself.
For those want to enable this `ENABLE_REVERSE_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION_API`,
they should know what they are doing.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
They currently throw a Internal Server Error when you use them without a
token. Now they correctly return a `token is required` error.
This is no security issue. If you use this endpoints with a token that
don't have the correct permission, you get the correct error. This is
not affected by this PR.
- Add routes for creating or updating a user's actions secrets in
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/user/action.go` with functions for
creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
- Modify the `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl` file to include the routes
for creating or updating a user's secrets and deleting a user's secret
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
- Modify the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function in `api.go` to include a
`Delete` operation for the secret
- Modify the `DeleteOrgSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the organization
- Modify the `DeleteSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the repository
- Modify the `v1_json.tmpl` template file to update the `operationId`
and `summary` for the `deleteSecret` operation in both the organization
and repository sections
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-a-repository-secret
- Add a new route for creating or updating a secret value in a
repository
- Create a new file `routers/api/v1/repo/action.go` with the
implementation of the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function
- Update the Swagger documentation for the `updateRepoSecret` operation
in the `v1_json.tmpl` template file
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
According to the GitHub API Spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-an-organization-secret
Merge the Create and Update secret into a single API.
- Remove the `CreateSecretOption` struct and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateSecretOption` in `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Update the `CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` to use `CreateOrUpdateSecretOption`
instead of `UpdateSecretOption`
- Remove the `CreateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret`
- Update the Swagger documentation in
`routers/api/v1/swagger/options.go` and `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl`
to reflect the changes in the struct names and function names
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new `CreateSecretOption` struct for creating secrets
- Implement a `CreateOrgSecret` function to create a secret in an
organization
- Add a new route in `api.go` to handle the creation of organization
secrets
- Update the Swagger template to include the new `CreateOrgSecret` API
endpoint
---------
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new function `CountOrgSecrets` in the file
`models/secret/secret.go`
- Add a new file `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Add a new function `ListActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
- Add a new function `listActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
go-sdk: https://gitea.com/gitea/go-sdk/pulls/629
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
This adds an API for uploading and Deleting Avatars for of Users, Repos
and Organisations. I'm not sure, if this should also be added to the
Admin API.
Resolves#25344
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
1. The "web" package shouldn't depends on "modules/context" package,
instead, let each "web context" register themselves to the "web"
package.
2. The old Init/Free doesn't make sense, so simplify it
* The ctx in "Init(ctx)" is never used, and shouldn't be used that way
* The "Free" is never called and shouldn't be called because the SSPI
instance is shared
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Changes
- Adds the following high level access scopes, each with `read` and
`write` levels:
- `activitypub`
- `admin` (hidden if user is not a site admin)
- `misc`
- `notification`
- `organization`
- `package`
- `issue`
- `repository`
- `user`
- Adds new middleware function `tokenRequiresScopes()` in addition to
`reqToken()`
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` is used for each high-level api section
- _if_ a scoped token is present, checks that the required scope is
included based on the section and HTTP method
- `reqToken()` is used for individual routes
- checks that required authentication is present (but does not check
scope levels as this will already have been handled by
`tokenRequiresScopes()`
- Adds migration to convert old scoped access tokens to the new set of
scopes
- Updates the user interface for scope selection
### User interface example
<img width="903" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 55 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/654766ec-2143-4f59-9037-3b51600e32f3">
<img width="917" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 43 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/1ad64081-012c-4a73-b393-66b30352654c">
## tokenRequiresScopes Design Decision
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` was added to more reliably cover api routes.
For an incoming request, this function uses the given scope category
(say `AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization`) and the HTTP method (say
`DELETE`) and verifies that any scoped tokens in use include
`delete:organization`.
- `reqToken()` is used to enforce auth for individual routes that
require it. If a scoped token is not present for a request,
`tokenRequiresScopes()` will not return an error
## TODO
- [x] Alphabetize scope categories
- [x] Change 'public repos only' to a radio button (private vs public).
Also expand this to organizations
- [X] Disable token creation if no scopes selected. Alternatively, show
warning
- [x] `reqToken()` is missing from many `POST/DELETE` routes in the api.
`tokenRequiresScopes()` only checks that a given token has the correct
scope, `reqToken()` must be used to check that a token (or some other
auth) is present.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] The migration should be reviewed very carefully in order to
minimize access changes to existing user tokens.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] Link to api to swagger documentation, clarify what
read/write/delete levels correspond to
- [x] Review cases where more than one scope is needed as this directly
deviates from the api definition.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- For example:
```go
m.Group("/users/{username}/orgs", func() {
m.Get("", reqToken(), org.ListUserOrgs)
m.Get("/{org}/permissions", reqToken(), org.GetUserOrgsPermissions)
}, tokenRequiresScopes(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser,
auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization),
context_service.UserAssignmentAPI())
```
## Future improvements
- [ ] Add required scopes to swagger documentation
- [ ] Redesign `reqToken()` to be opt-out rather than opt-in
- [ ] Subdivide scopes like `repository`
- [ ] Once a token is created, if it has no scopes, we should display
text instead of an empty bullet point
- [ ] If the 'public repos only' option is selected, should read
categories be selected by default
Closes#24501Closes#24799
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jon@allspice.io>
Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
This PR creates an API endpoint for creating/updating/deleting multiple
files in one API call similar to the solution provided by
[GitLab](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/commits.html#create-a-commit-with-multiple-files-and-actions).
To archive this, the CreateOrUpdateRepoFile and DeleteRepoFIle functions
in files service are unified into one function supporting multiple files
and actions.
Resolves#14619
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves#2175.
## Screenshots
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Replace #16455Close#21803
Mixing different Gitea contexts together causes some problems:
1. Unable to respond proper content when error occurs, eg: Web should
respond HTML while API should respond JSON
2. Unclear dependency, eg: it's unclear when Context is used in
APIContext, which fields should be initialized, which methods are
necessary.
To make things clear, this PR introduces a Base context, it only
provides basic Req/Resp/Data features.
This PR mainly moves code. There are still many legacy problems and
TODOs in code, leave unrelated changes to future PRs.
1. Remove unused fields/methods in web context.
2. Make callers call target function directly instead of the light
wrapper like "IsUserRepoReaderSpecific"
3. The "issue template" code shouldn't be put in the "modules/context"
package, so move them to the service package.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This adds a API for getting License templates. This tries to be as close
to the [GitHub
API](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/licenses?apiVersion=2022-11-28) as
possible, but Gitea does not support all features that GitHub has. I
think they should been added, but this out f the scope of this PR. You
should merge #23006 before this PR for security reasons.
