This introduces a new flag `BlockAdminMergeOverride` on the branch
protection rules that prevents admins/repo owners from bypassing branch
protection rules and merging without approvals or failing status checks.
Fixes#17131
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fixes#22722
### Problem
Currently, it is not possible to force push to a branch with branch
protection rules in place. There are often times where this is necessary
(CI workflows/administrative tasks etc).
The current workaround is to rename/remove the branch protection,
perform the force push, and then reinstate the protections.
### Solution
Provide an additional section in the branch protection rules to allow
users to specify which users with push access can also force push to the
branch. The default value of the rule will be set to `Disabled`, and the
UI is intuitive and very similar to the `Push` section.
It is worth noting in this implementation that allowing force push does
not override regular push access, and both will need to be enabled for a
user to force push.
This applies to manual force push to a remote, and also in Gitea UI
updating a PR by rebase (which requires force push)
This modifies the `BranchProtection` API structs to add:
- `enable_force_push bool`
- `enable_force_push_whitelist bool`
- `force_push_whitelist_usernames string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_teams string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_deploy_keys bool`
### Updated Branch Protection UI:
<img width="943" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/7491899c-d816-45d5-be84-8512abd156bf">
### Pull Request `Update branch by Rebase` option enabled with source
branch `test` being a protected branch:
<img width="1038" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/57ead13e-9006-459f-b83c-7079e6f4c654">
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR split the `Board` into two parts. One is the struct has been
renamed to `Column` and the second we have a `Template Type`.
But to make it easier to review, this PR will not change the database
schemas, they are just renames. The database schema changes could be in
future PRs.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
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>
Since `modules/context` has to depend on `models` and many other
packages, it should be moved from `modules/context` to
`services/context` according to design principles. There is no logic
code change on this PR, only move packages.
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/context` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context`
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/contexttest` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/contexttest` because of depending on
context
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/upload` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload` because of depending on
context
Clarify when "string" should be used (and be escaped), and when
"template.HTML" should be used (no need to escape)
And help PRs like #29059 , to render the error messages correctly.
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
As more and more options can be set for creating the repository, I don't
think we should put all of them into the creation web page which will
make things look complicated and confusing.
And I think we need some rules about how to decide which should/should
not be put in creating a repository page. One rule I can imagine is if
this option can be changed later and it's not a MUST on the creation,
then it can be removed on the page. So I found trust model is the first
one.
This PR removed the trust model selections on creating a repository web
page and kept others as before.
This is also a preparation for #23894 which will add a choice about SHA1
or SHA256 that cannot be changed once the repository created.
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>
- Remove `ObjectFormatID`
- Remove function `ObjectFormatFromID`.
- Use `Sha1ObjectFormat` directly but not a pointer because it's an
empty struct.
- Store `ObjectFormatName` in `repository` struct
Refactor Hash interfaces and centralize hash function. This will allow
easier introduction of different hash function later on.
This forms the "no-op" part of the SHA256 enablement patch.
## 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>
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.
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.
This PR is to allow users to specify status checks by patterns. Users
can enter patterns in the "Status Check Pattern" `textarea` to match
status checks and each line specifies a pattern. If "Status Check" is
enabled, patterns cannot be empty and user must enter at least one
pattern.
Users will no longer be able to choose status checks from the table. But
a __*`Matched`*__ mark will be added to the matched checks to help users
enter patterns.
Benefits:
- Even if no status checks have been completed, users can specify
necessary status checks in advance.
- More flexible. Users can specify a series of status checks by one
pattern.
Before:
After:
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Close#23241
Before: press Ctrl+Enter in the Code Review Form, a single comment will
be added.
After: press Ctrl+Enter in the Code Review Form, start the review with
pending comments.
The old name `is_review` is not clear, so the new code use
`pending_review` as the new name.
Co-authored-by: delvh <leon@kske.dev>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Add a new "exclusive" option per label. This makes it so that when the
label is named `scope/name`, no other label with the same `scope/`
prefix can be set on an issue.
The scope is determined by the last occurence of `/`, so for example
`scope/alpha/name` and `scope/beta/name` are considered to be in
different scopes and can coexist.
Exclusive scopes are not enforced by any database rules, however they
are enforced when editing labels at the models level, automatically
removing any existing labels in the same scope when either attaching a
new label or replacing all labels.
In menus use a circle instead of checkbox to indicate they function as
radio buttons per scope. Issue filtering by label ensures that only a
single scoped label is selected at a time. Clicking with alt key can be
used to remove a scoped label, both when editing individual issues and
batch editing.
Label rendering refactor for consistency and code simplification:
* Labels now consistently have the same shape, emojis and tooltips
everywhere. This includes the label list and label assignment menus.
* In label list, show description below label same as label menus.
* Don't use exactly black/white text colors to look a bit nicer.
* Simplify text color computation. There is no point computing luminance
in linear color space, as this is a perceptual problem and sRGB is
closer to perceptually linear.
* Increase height of label assignment menus to show more labels. Showing
only 3-4 labels at a time leads to a lot of scrolling.
* Render all labels with a new RenderLabel template helper function.
Label creation and editing in multiline modal menu:
* Change label creation to open a modal menu like label editing.
* Change menu layout to place name, description and colors on separate
lines.
* Don't color cancel button red in label editing modal menu.
* Align text to the left in model menu for better readability and
consistent with settings layout elsewhere.
Custom exclusive scoped label rendering:
* Display scoped label prefix and suffix with slightly darker and
lighter background color respectively, and a slanted edge between them
similar to the `/` symbol.
* In menus exclusive labels are grouped with a divider line.
---------
Co-authored-by: Yarden Shoham <hrsi88@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Add setting to allow edits by maintainers by default, to avoid having to
often ask contributors to enable this.
This also reorganizes the pull request settings UI to improve clarity.
It was unclear which checkbox options were there to control available
merge styles and which merge styles they correspond to.
Now there is a "Merge Styles" label followed by the merge style options
with the same name as in other menus. The remaining checkboxes were
moved to the bottom, ordered rougly by typical order of operations.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Original Issue: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/22102
This addition would be a big benefit for design and art teams using the
issue tracking.
The preview will be the latest "image type" attachments on an issue-
simple, and allows for automatic updates of the cover image as issue
progress is made!
This would make Gitea competitive with Trello... wouldn't it be amazing
to say goodbye to Atlassian products? Ha.
First image is the most recent, the SQL will fetch up to 5 latest images
(URL string).
All images supported by browsers plus upcoming formats: *.avif *.bmp
*.gif *.jpg *.jpeg *.jxl *.png *.svg *.webp
The CSS will try to center-align images until it cannot, then it will
left align with overflow hidden. Single images get to be slightly
larger!
Tested so far on: Chrome, Firefox, Android Chrome, Android Firefox.
Current revision with light and dark themes:
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
This PR introduce glob match for protected branch name. The separator is
`/` and you can use `*` matching non-separator chars and use `**` across
separator.
It also supports input an exist or non-exist branch name as matching
condition and branch name condition has high priority than glob rule.
Should fix#2529 and #15705
screenshots
<img width="1160" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/81045/205651179-ebb5492a-4ade-4bb4-a13c-965e8c927063.png">
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
_This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting
some parts, see below_
## Context
In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication.
The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a
given token. For instance:
- Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the
header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872)
- TeamCity #18667
- Gitea instances #20267
- SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this
is my actual personal need :)
## Proposed solution
Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing
it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all
present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307).
This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872.
As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and
improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple
`Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and
`Basic` switches):
The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase
justifying otherwise.
## Questions
- What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind
- ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new
file, or is there a command for that?~~
- ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I
drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~
## Done as well:
- add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the
`Authorization` logic there
_Closes #19872_
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Both allow only limited characters. If you input more, you will get a error
message. So it make sense to limit the characters of the input fields.
Slightly relax the MaxSize of repo's Description and Website
Add support for triggering webhook notifications on wiki changes.
This PR contains frontend and backend for webhook notifications on wiki actions (create a new page, rename a page, edit a page and delete a page). The frontend got a new checkbox under the Custom Event -> Repository Events section. There is only one checkbox for create/edit/rename/delete actions, because it makes no sense to separate it and others like releases or packages follow the same schema.
The actions itself are separated, so that different notifications will be executed (with the "action" field). All the webhook receivers implement the new interface method (Wiki) and the corresponding tests.
When implementing this, I encounter a little bug on editing a wiki page. Creating and editing a wiki page is technically the same action and will be handled by the ```updateWikiPage``` function. But the function need to know if it is a new wiki page or just a change. This distinction is done by the ```action``` parameter, but this will not be sent by the frontend (on form submit). This PR will fix this by adding the ```action``` parameter with the values ```_new``` or ```_edit```, which will be used by the ```updateWikiPage``` function.
I've done integration tests with matrix and gitea (http).
Fix#16457
Signed-off-by: Aaron Fischer <mail@aaron-fischer.net>
Support synchronizing with the push mirrors whenever new commits are pushed or synced from pull mirror.
Related Issues: #18220
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* Move access and repo permission to models/perm/access
* fix test
* fix git test
* Move functions sequence
* Some improvements per @KN4CK3R and @delvh
* Move issues related code to models/issues
* Move some issues related sub package
* Merge
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Rename some files
* Make Ctrl+Enter (quick submit) work for issue comment and wiki editor
* Remove the required `SubmitReviewForm.Type`, empty type (triggered by quick submit) means "comment"
* Merge duplicate code
* Fix indention
Signed-off-by: kolaente <k@knt.li>
* Add option to merge a pr right now without waiting for the checks to succeed
Signed-off-by: kolaente <k@knt.li>
* Fix lint
Signed-off-by: kolaente <k@knt.li>
* Add scheduled pr merge to tables used for testing
Signed-off-by: kolaente <k@knt.li>
* Add status param to make GetPullRequestByHeadBranch reusable
Signed-off-by: kolaente <k@knt.li>
* Move "Merge now" to a seperate button to make the ui clearer
Signed-off-by: kolaente <k@knt.li>
* Update models/scheduled_pull_request_merge.go
Co-authored-by: 赵智超 <1012112796@qq.com>
* Update web_src/js/index.js
Co-authored-by: 赵智超 <1012112796@qq.com>
* Update web_src/js/index.js
Co-authored-by: 赵智超 <1012112796@qq.com>
* Re-add migration after merge
* Fix frontend lint
* Fix version compare
* Add vendored dependencies
* Add basic tets
* Make sure the api route is capable of scheduling PRs for merging
* Fix comparing version
* make vendor
* adopt refactor
* apply suggestion: User -> Doer
* init var once
* Fix Test
* Update templates/repo/issue/view_content/comments.tmpl
* adopt
* nits
* next
* code format
* lint
* use same name schema; rm CreateUnScheduledPRToAutoMergeComment
* API: can not create schedule twice
* Add TestGetBranchNamesForSha
* nits
* new go routine for each pull to merge
* Update models/pull.go
Co-authored-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
* Update models/scheduled_pull_request_merge.go
Co-authored-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
* fix & add renaming sugestions
* Update services/automerge/pull_auto_merge.go
Co-authored-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
* fix conflict relicts
* apply latest refactors
* fix: migration after merge
* Update models/error.go
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* Update options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* Update options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* adapt latest refactors
* fix test
* use more context
* skip potential edgecases
* document func usage
* GetBranchNamesForSha() -> GetRefsBySha()
* start refactoring
* ajust to new changes
* nit
* docu nit
* the great check move
* move checks for branchprotection into own package
* resolve todo now ...
* move & rename
* unexport if posible
* fix
* check if merge is allowed before merge on scheduled pull
* debugg
* wording
* improve SetDefaults & nits
* NotAllowedToMerge -> DisallowedToMerge
* fix test
* merge files
* use package "errors"
* merge files
* add string names
* other implementation for gogit
* adapt refactor
* more context for models/pull.go
* GetUserRepoPermission use context
* more ctx
* use context for loading pull head/base-repo
* more ctx
* more ctx
* models.LoadIssueCtx()
* models.LoadIssueCtx()
* Handle pull_service.Merge in one DB transaction
* add TODOs
* next
* next
* next
* more ctx
* more ctx
* Start refactoring structure of old pull code ...
* move code into new packages
* shorter names ... and finish **restructure**
* Update models/branches.go
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
* finish UpdateProtectBranch
* more and fix
* update datum
* template: use "svg" helper
* rename prQueue 2 prPatchCheckerQueue
* handle automerge in queue
* lock pull on git&db actions ...
* lock pull on git&db actions ...
* add TODO notes
* the regex
* transaction in tests
* GetRepositoryByIDCtx
* shorter table name and lint fix
* close transaction bevore notify
* Update models/pull.go
* next
* CheckPullMergable check all branch protections!
* Update routers/web/repo/pull.go
* CheckPullMergable check all branch protections!
* Revert "PullService lock via pullID (#19520)" (for now...)
This reverts commit 6cde7c9159a5ea75a10356feb7b8c7ad4c434a9a.
* Update services/pull/check.go
* Use for a repo action one database transaction
* Apply suggestions from code review
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* Update services/issue/status.go
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* Update services/issue/status.go
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* use db.WithTx()
* gofmt
* make pr.GetDefaultMergeMessage() context aware
* make MergePullRequestForm.SetDefaults context aware
* use db.WithTx()
* pull.SetMerged only with context
* fix deadlock in `test-sqlite\#TestAPIBranchProtection`
* dont forget templates
* db.WithTx allow to set the parentCtx
* handle db transaction in service packages but not router
* issue_service.ChangeStatus just had caused another deadlock :/
it has to do something with how notification package is handled
* if we merge a pull in one database transaktion, we get a lock, because merge infoce internal api that cant handle open db sessions to the same repo
* ajust to current master
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* dont open db transaction in router
* make generate-swagger
* one _success less
* wording nit
* rm
* adapt
* remove not needed test files
* rm less diff & use attr in JS
* ...
* Update services/repository/files/commit.go
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
* ajust db schema for PullAutoMerge
* skip broken pull refs
* more context in error messages
* remove webUI part for another pull
* remove more WebUI only parts
* API: add CancleAutoMergePR
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
* fix lint
* Apply suggestions from code review
* cancle -> cancel
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* change queue identifyer
* fix swagger
* prevent nil issue
* fix and dont drop error
* as per @zeripath
* Update integrations/git_test.go
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* Update integrations/git_test.go
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
* more declarative integration tests (dedup code)
* use assert.False/True helper
Co-authored-by: 赵智超 <1012112796@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Adds a feature [like GitHub has](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/proposing-changes-to-your-work-with-pull-requests/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork) (step 7).
If you create a new PR from a forked repo, you can select (and change later, but only if you are the PR creator/poster) the "Allow edits from maintainers" option.
Then users with write access to the base branch get more permissions on this branch:
* use the update pull request button
* push directly from the command line (`git push`)
* edit/delete/upload files via web UI
* use related API endpoints
You can't merge PRs to this branch with this enabled, you'll need "full" code write permissions.
This feature has a pretty big impact on the permission system. I might forgot changing some things or didn't find security vulnerabilities. In this case, please leave a review or comment on this PR.
Closes#17728
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
This make checks in one single place so they dont differ and maintainer can not forget a check in one place while adding it to the other .... ( as it's atm )
Fix:
* The API does ignore issue dependencies where Web does not
* The API checks if "IsSignedIfRequired" where Web does not - UI probably do but nothing will some to craft custom requests
* Default merge message is crafted a bit different between API and Web if not set on specific cases ...
