Fix#880
Design:
1. A global setting `security.TWO_FACTOR_AUTH`.
* To support org-level config, we need to introduce a better "owner
setting" system first (in the future)
2. A user without 2FA can login and may explore, but can NOT read or
write to any repositories via API/web.
3. Keep things as simple as possible.
* This option only aggressively suggest users to enable their 2FA at the
moment, it does NOT guarantee that users must have 2FA before all other
operations, it should be good enough for real world use cases.
* Some details and tests could be improved in the future since this
change only adds a check and seems won't affect too much.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This pull request adds a GitHub-compatible API endpoint to lock and
unlock an issue.
The following routes exist now:
- `PUT /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{id}/lock` to lock an issue
- `DELETE /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{id}/lock` to unlock an issue
Fixes#33677Fixes#20012
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fix#2616
This PR adds a new sort option for exclusive labels.
For exclusive labels, a new property is exposed called "order", while in
the UI options are populated automatically in the `Sort` column (see
screenshot below) for each exclusive label scope.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Follow #33127Fix#8649, fix#639
This is a complete solution. A repo unit could be set to:
* Anonymous read (non-signed-in user)
* Everyone read (signed-in user)
* Everyone write (wiki-only)
Extract from #33320
This PR uses a map instead of a struct to store webhook event
information. It removes many duplicated functions and makes the logic
clearer.
Found while investigating #33210.
This line no longer makes sense because the form field "TagName" is
required, so this would mean that this code path would never be covered.
Because it isn't covered, we end up going down the "update release"
logic where we eventually set `Release.IsTag` to false (meaning it will
now be treated as a release instead of a tag).
This snapshot rewrites the condition to ensure that we aren't trying to
create a tag that already exists.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This fixes a TODO in the code to validate the RedirectURIs when adding
or editing an OAuth application in user settings.
This also includes a refactor of the user settings tests to only create
the DB once per top-level test to avoid reloading fixtures.
## Solves
Currently for rules to re-order them you have to alter the creation
date. so you basicly have to delete and recreate them in the right
order. This is more than just inconvinient ...
## Solution
Add a new col for prioritization
## Demo WebUI Video
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/92182a31-9705-4ac5-b6e3-9bb74108cbd1
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
Follow #32460
Now the code could be much clearer than before and easier to maintain. A
lot of legacy code is removed.
Manually tested.
This PR is large enough, that fine tunes could be deferred to the future if
there is no bug found or design problem.
Screenshots:
<details>
</details>
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>
Initial support for #25680
This PR only adds some simple styles from GitHub, it is big enough and
it focuses on adding the necessary framework-level supports. More styles
could be fine-tuned later.
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.
