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 d87c526d2a313fa45093ab49b78bb30322b33298)
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)
do not reuse the payload of the event that triggered the creation of
the scheduled event. Create a new one instead that contains no other
information than the event name in the action field ("schedule").
(cherry picked from commit 0b40ca1ea5e6b704bcb6c0d370a21f633facc7d6)
(cherry picked from commit f86487432b3b5f2fd4e2bb0a2d737674d9a105a6)
(cherry picked from commit 4bd5d2e9d0c7987a9d7cce495509c8790dcdcd3a)
(cherry picked from commit d10830e238f35bcd0100a4de68d68b15402ec05a)
(cherry picked from commit 53f5a3aa911fb63689ef018fe583eeb03f248517)
(cherry picked from commit 9ed1487b73babe44d0b2855cc708184c55671ab0)
(cherry picked from commit 6a399788516523bc52778f9d9df7f283d5b2c6d6)
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)
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>
- Modify the `Password` field in `CreateUserOption` struct to remove the
`Required` tag
- Update the `v1_json.tmpl` template to include the `email` field and
remove the `password` field
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
I noticed, that the push mirrors endpoint, is the only endpoint which
returns the times in long format rather than as time.Time().
I think the behavior should be consistent across the project.
----
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
This PR changes the time format used in API responses for all
push_mirror endpoints which return a push mirror.
---------
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>
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/580
- Return a `upload_field` to any release API response, which points to
the API URL for uploading new assets.
- Adds unit test.
- Adds integration testing to verify URL is returned correctly and that
upload endpoint actually works
---------
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- 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>
## Archived labels
This adds the structure to allow for archived labels.
Archived labels are, just like closed milestones or projects, a medium to hide information without deleting it.
It is especially useful if there are outdated labels that should no longer be used without deleting the label entirely.
## Changes
1. UI and API have been equipped with the support to mark a label as archived
2. The time when a label has been archived will be stored in the DB
## Outsourced for the future
There's no special handling for archived labels at the moment.
This will be done in the future.
## Screenshots
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25237
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
- The `NoBetterThan` function can only handle comparisons between
"pending," "success," "error," and "failure." For any other comparison,
we directly return false. This prevents logic errors like the one in
#26121.
- The callers of the `NoBetterThan` function should also avoid making
incomparable calls.
---------
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: puni9869 <80308335+puni9869@users.noreply.github.com>
Fix#25776. Close#25826.
In the discussion of #25776, @wolfogre's suggestion was to remove the
commit status of `running` and `warning` to keep it consistent with
github.
references:
-
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVersion=2022-11-28#about-commit-statuses
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
So the commit status of Gitea will be consistent with GitHub, only
`pending`, `success`, `error` and `failure`, while `warning` and
`running` are not supported anymore.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Before: the concept "Content string" is used everywhere. It has some
problems:
1. Sometimes it means "base64 encoded content", sometimes it means "raw
binary content"
2. It doesn't work with large files, eg: uploading a 1G LFS file would
make Gitea process OOM
This PR does the refactoring: use "ContentReader" / "ContentBase64"
instead of "Content"
This PR is not breaking because the key in API JSON is still "content":
`` ContentBase64 string `json:"content"` ``
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>
Fixes some issues with the swagger documentation for the new multiple
files API endpoint (#24887) which were overlooked when submitting the
original PR:
1. add some missing parameter descriptions
2. set correct `required` option for required parameters
3. change endpoint description to match it full functionality (every
kind of file modification is supported, not just creating and updating)
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>
close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/16321
Provided a webhook trigger for requesting someone to review the Pull
Request.
Some modifications have been made to the returned `PullRequestPayload`
based on the GitHub webhook settings, including:
- add a description of the current reviewer object as
`RequestedReviewer` .
- setting the action to either **review_requested** or
**review_request_removed** based on the operation.
- adding the `RequestedReviewers` field to the issues_model.PullRequest.
This field will be loaded into the PullRequest through
`LoadRequestedReviewers()` when `ToAPIPullRequest` is called.
After the Pull Request is merged, I will supplement the relevant
documentation.
#### Added
- API: Create a branch directly from commit on the create branch API
- Added `old_ref_name` parameter to allow creating a new branch from a
specific commit, tag, or branch.
- Deprecated `old_branch_name` parameter in favor of the new
`old_ref_name` parameter.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
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.
Closes#20955
This PR adds the possibility to disable blank Issues, when the Repo has
templates. This can be done by creating the file
`.gitea/issue_config.yaml` with the content `blank_issues_enabled` in
the Repo.
Adds API endpoints to manage issue/PR dependencies
* `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` List issues that are
blocked by this issue
* `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` Block the issue
given in the body by the issue in path
* `DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks` Unblock the issue
given in the body by the issue in path
* `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` List an
issue's dependencies
* `POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` Create a new
issue dependencies
* `DELETE /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` Remove an
issue dependency
Closes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/15393Closes#22115
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Remove `[repository.editor] PREVIEWABLE_FILE_MODES` setting that seemed
like it was intended to support this but did not work. Instead, whenever
viewing a file shows a preview, also have a Preview tab in the file
editor.
Add new `/markup` web and API endpoints with `comment`, `gfm`,
`markdown` and new `file` mode that uses a file path to determine the
renderer.
Remove `/markdown` web endpoint but keep the API for backwards and
GitHub compatibility.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
The `[repository.editor] PREVIEWABLE_FILE_MODES` setting was removed.
This setting served no practical purpose and was not working correctly.
Instead a preview tab is always shown in the file editor when supported.
---------
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
this is a simple endpoint that adds the ability to rename users to the
admin API.
Note: this is not in a mergeable state. It would be better if this was
handled by a PATCH/POST to the /api/v1/admin/users/{username} endpoint
and the username is modified.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
