Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen
only in one place.
---
## Current webhook flow
1. An event happens
2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is
added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook
type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request
This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3.
This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain.
Updated webhook flow with this PR:
1. An event happens
2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue
3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the
webhook type) to make an HTTP request
So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3)
which should be much more robust.
## Consequences of the refactor
- the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the
pre-processed body was stored)
- to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a
`payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been
pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event)
So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an
http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in
multiple places, like currently).
Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task
queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for
instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook.
As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be
substantially smaller:
- no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go`
- minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook
to the map)
- no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this
refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
Tested a few things, all working fine. Not sure if the chinese machine
translation is good.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fix for regressions introduced by #28805
Enabled projects on repos created before the PR weren't detected. Also,
the way projects mode was detected in settings didn't match the way it
was detected on permission check, which leads to confusion.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
* "mail/issue/default.tmpl": the body is rendered by backend
`markdown.RenderString() HTML`, it has been already sanitized
* "repo/settings/webhook/base_list.tmpl": "Description" is prepared by
backend `ctx.Tr`, it doesn't need to be sanitized
Part of #23318
Add menu in repo settings to allow for repo admin to decide not just if
projects are enabled or disabled per repo, but also which kind of
projects (repo-level/owner-level) are enabled. If repo projects
disabled, don't show the projects tab.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Follow #29165
* some of them are incorrect, which would lead to double escaping (eg:
`(print (Escape $.RepoLink)`)
* other of them are not necessary, because `Tr` handles strings&HTML
automatically
Suggest to review by "unified view":
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/29394/files?diff=unified&w=0
RenderEmojiPlain(emoji.ReplaceAliases) should be called explicitly for
some contents, but not for everything.
Actually in modern days, in most cases it doesn't need such
"ReplaceAliases". So only keep it for issue/PR titles.
If anyone really needs to do ReplaceAliases for some contents, I will
propose a following fix.
With this option, it is possible to require a linear commit history with
the following benefits over the next best option `Rebase+fast-forward`:
The original commits continue existing, with the original signatures
continuing to stay valid instead of being rewritten, there is no merge
commit, and reverting commits becomes easier.
Closes#24906
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>
There is an accessibility issue in the interface when attempting to
delete a repository. When I click on "Delete repository," a dialog box
appears, requiring confirmation to proceed with the repository deletion.
However, when I press the "Repo name" label, the wrong input field gains
focus. The focused field is located behind the dialog and is intended
for renaming the repository.
This PR adds a new field `RemoteAddress` to both mirror types which
contains the sanitized remote address for easier (database) access to
that information. Will be used in the audit PR if merged.
1. There is already `gt-ac`, so no need to introduce `flex-item-center`
2. The `flex-item-baseline` and `.flex-item-icon svg { margin-top: 1px
}` seem to be a tricky patch, they don't resolve the root problem, and
still cause misalignment in some cases.
* The root problem is: the "icon" needs to align with the sibling
"title"
* So, make the "icon" and the "title" both have the same height
3. `flex-text-inline` could only be used if the element is really
"inline", otherwise its `vertical-align` would make the box size change.
In most cases, `flex-text-block` is good enough.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
1. In many cases, the `flex-list` has previous and next `gt-hidden`
siblings, so relax the CSS selector to remove all ".segument .flex-list"
paddings.
2. Make the "Add key" button can toggle
3. Move help message into the related segment(panel). Otherwise users
would misread the message, eg: the SSH help seemed for GPG because they
are so near
4. Move modal element into the segment element, otherwise it affects the
layout
I noticed that the code of several new webhook pages is highly
repetitive, so I pulled out the common parts to a new template, unified
reference, unified maintenance
---------
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Each change is tested manually line by line. There are too many changes
so I can't share dozens of screenshots.
In short:
1. `ui right` could be still used in `ui top attached header`, because
there is a special case.
2. A lot of `ui right` are just no-op, so they can be removed safely.
3. Some of the `ui right` should be replaced by `gt-float-right` (to
avoid breaking, leave them to the future).
4. A few of the `ui right` could be rewritten by flex.
