Fix#28157
This PR fix the possible bugs about actions schedule.
## The Changes
- Move `UpdateRepositoryUnit` and `SetRepoDefaultBranch` from models to
service layer
- Remove schedules plan from database and cancel waiting & running
schedules tasks in this repository when actions unit has been disabled
or global disabled.
- Remove schedules plan from database and cancel waiting & running
schedules tasks in this repository when default branch changed.
- cancel running jobs if the event is push
- Add a new function `CancelRunningJobs` to cancel all running jobs of a
run
- Update `FindRunOptions` struct to include `Ref` field and update its
condition in `toConds` function
- Implement auto cancellation of running jobs in the same workflow in
`notify` function
related task: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22751/
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Close#24544
Changes:
- Create `action_tasks_version` table to store the latest version of
each scope (global, org and repo).
- When a job with the status of `waiting` is created, the tasks version
of the scopes it belongs to will increase.
- When the status of a job already in the database is updated to
`waiting`, the tasks version of the scopes it belongs to will increase.
- On Gitea side, in `FeatchTask()`, will try to query the
`action_tasks_version` record of the scope of the runner that call
`FetchTask()`. If the record does not exist, will insert a row. Then,
Gitea will compare the version passed from runner to Gitea with the
version in database, if inconsistent, try pick task. Gitea always
returns the latest version from database to the runner.
Related:
- Protocol: https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-def/pulls/10
- Runner: https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/219
Fix#25088
This PR adds the support for
[`pull_request_target`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target)
workflow trigger. `pull_request_target` is similar to `pull_request`,
but the workflow triggered by the `pull_request_target` event runs in
the context of the base branch of the pull request rather than the head
branch. Since the workflow from the base is considered trusted, it can
access the secrets and doesn't need approvals to run.
This PR replaces all string refName as a type `git.RefName` to make the
code more maintainable.
Fix#15367
Replaces #23070
It also fixed a bug that tags are not sync because `git remote --prune
origin` will not remove local tags if remote removed.
We in fact should use `git fetch --prune --tags origin` but not `git
remote update origin` to do the sync.
Some answer from ChatGPT as ref.
> If the git fetch --prune --tags command is not working as expected,
there could be a few reasons why. Here are a few things to check:
>
>Make sure that you have the latest version of Git installed on your
system. You can check the version by running git --version in your
terminal. If you have an outdated version, try updating Git and see if
that resolves the issue.
>
>Check that your Git repository is properly configured to track the
remote repository's tags. You can check this by running git config
--get-all remote.origin.fetch and verifying that it includes
+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*. If it does not, you can add it by running git
config --add remote.origin.fetch "+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*".
>
>Verify that the tags you are trying to prune actually exist on the
remote repository. You can do this by running git ls-remote --tags
origin to list all the tags on the remote repository.
>
>Check if any local tags have been created that match the names of tags
on the remote repository. If so, these local tags may be preventing the
git fetch --prune --tags command from working properly. You can delete
local tags using the git tag -d command.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
There is no fork concept in agit flow, anyone with read permission can
push `refs/for/<target-branch>/<topic-branch>` to the repo. So we should
treat it as a fork pull request because it may be from an untrusted
user.
The name of the job or step comes from the workflow file, while the name
of the runner comes from its registration. If the strings used for these
names are too long, they could cause db issues.
