- This is a 'front-port' of the already existing patch on v1.21 and
v1.20, but applied on top of what Gitea has done to rework the LTA
mechanism. Forgejo will stick with the reworked mechanism by the Forgejo
Security team for the time being. The removal of legacy code (AES-GCM) has been
left out.
- The current architecture is inherently insecure, because you can
construct the 'secret' cookie value with values that are available in
the database. Thus provides zero protection when a database is
dumped/leaked.
- This patch implements a new architecture that's inspired from: [Paragonie Initiative](https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies).
- Integration testing is added to ensure the new mechanism works.
- Removes a setting, because it's not used anymore.
(cherry picked from commit e3d6622a63)
(cherry picked from commit fef1a6dac5)
(cherry picked from commit b0c5165145)
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 c524d33402)
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 f061caa655)
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 ea36cf80f5)
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 96150971ca)
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 4926a5d7a2)
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 76c8faecdc)
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 cf787ad7fd)
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 1e4ff424d3)
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 da932152f1)
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 1f6a42808d)
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 8f22ea182e)
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 961fd13c55)
(cherry picked from commit d52f4eea44)
(cherry picked from commit 3540ea2a43)
Conflicts:
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1415
(cherry picked from commit 56720ade00)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_label.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1462
(cherry picked from commit 47c78927d6)
(cherry picked from commit 2030f3b965)
(cherry picked from commit f02aeb7698)
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 d072525b35)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3d)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec7)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd)
[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 ac4f727f63)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9)
(cherry picked from commit 77ba6be1da)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8337b5c4)
(cherry picked from commit 1d689eb686)
- Implements https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/32#issuecomment-918737
- Allows to add Forgejo-specific migrations that don't interfere with Gitea's migration logic. Please do note that we cannot liberally add migrations for Gitea tables, as they might do their own migrations in a future version on that table, and that could undo our migrations. Luckily, we don't have a scenario where that's needed and thus not taken into account.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/795
(cherry picked from commit 8ee32978c0)
(cherry picked from commit c240b34f59)
(cherry picked from commit 03936c6492)
(cherry picked from commit a20ed852f8)
(cherry picked from commit 1dfa82676f)
(cherry picked from commit c39ae0bf8a)
(cherry picked from commit cfaff08996)
(cherry picked from commit 94a458835a)
(cherry picked from commit 61a3cf77df)
(cherry picked from commit abb350fde8)
(cherry picked from commit 5194829d6b)
(cherry picked from commit 89239a60f2)
(cherry picked from commit 683cfd86ef)
(cherry picked from commit f4546cfed9)
(cherry picked from commit 86614d5826)
(cherry picked from commit e4b9c32187)
(cherry picked from commit 8c253719af)
(cherry picked from commit 857365d6c1)
(cherry picked from commit a488b3952f)
(cherry picked from commit 98313c4910)
(cherry picked from commit 430d95e824)
(cherry picked from commit 08bf9d918f)
(cherry picked from commit f8a170e2d0)
(cherry picked from commit d20e325378)
(cherry picked from commit 6c0aa7dd4f)
(cherry picked from commit 46c08c26c7)
(cherry picked from commit 9ee22153c4)
[DB] Ensure forgejo migration up to date (squash)
- Hook Forgejo's `EnsureUpToDate` to Gitea's `EnsureUpToDate`, such that
the Forgejo migrations are also being checked to be up to date.
- I'm not sure how I missed this and if this has caused any problems,
but due to the lack of any open issue about it it seems to not be a big
problem.
(cherry picked from commit 6c65b6dcf6)
(cherry picked from commit 6d45c37d84)
[DB] Add test for TestEnsureUpToDate (squash)
- Add a test for the behavior of `EnsureUpToDate`, to ensure it will
error when needed and succeed when the forgejo version is up to date.
- Add forgejo_migrations package to GO_TEST_PACKAGES, to avoid running
it with `test-unit` and instead test it with `test-*-migration`.
(cherry picked from commit b172a50691)
(cherry picked from commit d8af308820)
(cherry picked from commit e11dcc60f2)
use backticks to avoid backslash
(cherry picked from commit 34212791ee)
(cherry picked from commit bde9473c69)
(cherry picked from commit d4deb43084)
(cherry picked from commit 08e91649b0)
(cherry picked from commit 2b988e5415)
[TESTS] auth LinkAccount test coverage (squash)
(cherry picked from commit a2b2e3066b)
(cherry picked from commit 841d1b5073)
(cherry picked from commit 35da630ad8)
(cherry picked from commit caf2dc4fa7)
(cherry picked from commit 6eb81e67ba)
(cherry picked from commit d59757239f)
(cherry picked from commit 38a121b688)
(cherry picked from commit 20613874ee)
(cherry picked from commit 6d2705e108)
(cherry picked from commit f177b72814)
(cherry picked from commit 75e1fc4c83)
(cherry picked from commit ba64fa9867)
(cherry picked from commit 0b8ab0893e)
(cherry picked from commit 1419d11435)
(cherry picked from commit 38766847e0)
(cherry picked from commit 6f23426a6a)
(cherry picked from commit 9e0ff9ca54)
(cherry picked from commit 353f3601c3)
(cherry picked from commit 6e4ae401d8)
(cherry picked from commit 1a7afe4153)
(cherry picked from commit f9f3e0cc02)
(cherry picked from commit 22fd0337f3)
Fix#28056
This PR will check whether the repo has zero branch when pushing a
branch. If that, it means this repository hasn't been synced.
The reason caused that is after user upgrade from v1.20 -> v1.21, he
just push branches without visit the repository user interface. Because
all repositories routers will check whether a branches sync is necessary
but push has not such check.
For every repository, it has two states, synced or not synced. If there
is zero branch for a repository, then it will be assumed as non-sync
state. Otherwise, it's synced state. So if we think it's synced, we just
need to update branch/insert new branch. Otherwise do a full sync. So
that, for every push, there will be almost no extra load added. It's
high performance than yours.
For the implementation, we in fact will try to update the branch first,
if updated success with affect records > 0, then all are done. Because
that means the branch has been in the database. If no record is
affected, that means the branch does not exist in database. So there are
two possibilities. One is this is a new branch, then we just need to
insert the record. Another is the branches haven't been synced, then we
need to sync all the branches into database.
The function `GetByBean` has an obvious defect that when the fields are
empty values, it will be ignored. Then users will get a wrong result
which is possibly used to make a security problem.
To avoid the possibility, this PR removed function `GetByBean` and all
references.
And some new generic functions have been introduced to be used.
The recommand usage like below.
```go
// if query an object according id
obj, err := db.GetByID[Object](ctx, id)
// query with other conditions
obj, err := db.Get[Object](ctx, builder.Eq{"a": a, "b":b})
```
It will fix#28268 .
<img width="1313" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/cb1e07d5-7a12-4691-a054-8278ba255bfc">
<img width="1318" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/4fd60820-97f1-4c2c-a233-d3671a5039e9">
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
But need to give up some features:
<img width="1312" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/281c0d51-0e7d-473f-bbed-216e2f645610">
However, such abandonment may fix#28055 .
## Backgroud
When the user switches the dashboard context to an org, it means they
want to search issues in the repos that belong to the org. However, when
they switch to themselves, it means all repos they can access because
they may have created an issue in a public repo that they don't own.
<img width="286" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/182dcd5b-1c20-4725-93af-96e8dfae5b97">
It's a confusing design. Think about this: What does "In your
repositories" mean when the user switches to an org? Repos belong to the
user or the org?
Whatever, it has been broken by #26012 and its following PRs. After the
PR, it searches for issues in repos that the dashboard context user owns
or has been explicitly granted access to, so it causes #28268.
## How to fix it
It's not really difficult to fix it. Just extend the repo scope to
search issues when the dashboard context user is the doer. Since the
user may create issues or be mentioned in any public repo, we can just
set `AllPublic` to true, which is already supported by indexers. The DB
condition will also support it in this PR.
But the real difficulty is how to count the search results grouped by
repos. It's something like "search issues with this keyword and those
filters, and return the total number and the top results. **Then, group
all of them by repo and return the counts of each group.**"
<img width="314" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/5206eb20-f8f5-49b9-b45a-1be2fcf679f4">
Before #26012, it was being done in the DB, but it caused the results to
be incomplete (see the description of #26012).
And to keep this, #26012 implement it in an inefficient way, just count
the issues by repo one by one, so it cannot work when `AllPublic` is
true because it's almost impossible to do this for all public repos.
1bfcdeef4c/modules/indexer/issues/indexer.go (L318-L338)
## Give up unnecessary features
We may can resovle `TODO: use "group by" of the indexer engines to
implement it`, I'm sure it can be done with Elasticsearch, but IIRC,
Bleve and Meilisearch don't support "group by".
And the real question is, does it worth it? Why should we need to know
the counts grouped by repos?
Let me show you my search dashboard on gitea.com.
<img width="1304" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/2bca2d46-6c71-4de1-94cb-0c9af27c62ff">
I never think the long repo list helps anything.
And if we agree to abandon it, things will be much easier. That is this
PR.
## TODO
I know it's important to filter by repos when searching issues. However,
it shouldn't be the way we have it now. It could be implemented like
this.
<img width="1316" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/9418365/99ee5f21-cbb5-4dfe-914d-cb796cb79fbe">
The indexers support it well now, but it requires some frontend work,
which I'm not good at. So, I think someone could help do that in another
PR and merge this one to fix the bug first.
Or please block this PR and help to complete it.
Finally, "Switch dashboard context" is also a design that needs
improvement. In my opinion, it can be accomplished by adding filtering
conditions instead of "switching".
When we pick up a job, all waiting jobs should firstly be ordered by
update time,
otherwise when there's a running job, if I rerun an older job, the older
job will run first, as it's id is smaller.
This resolves a problem I encountered while updating gitea from 1.20.4
to 1.21. For some reason (correct or otherwise) there are some values in
`repository.size` that are NULL in my gitea database which cause this
migration to fail due to the NOT NULL constraints.
Log snippet (excuse the escape characters)
```
ESC[36mgitea |ESC[0m 2023-12-04T03:52:28.573122395Z 2023/12/04 03:52:28 ...ations/migrations.go:641:Migrate() [I] Migration[263]: Add git_size and lfs_size columns to repository table
ESC[36mgitea |ESC[0m 2023-12-04T03:52:28.608705544Z 2023/12/04 03:52:28 routers/common/db.go:36:InitDBEngine() [E] ORM engine initialization attempt #3/10 failed. Error: migrate: migration[263]: Add git_size and lfs_size columns to repository table failed: NOT NULL constraint failed: repository.git_size
```
I assume this should be reasonably safe since `repository.git_size` has
a default value of 0 but I don't know if that value being 0 in the odd
situation where `repository.size == NULL` has any problematic
consequences.
- Currently the repository description uses the same sanitizer as a
normal markdown document. This means that element such as heading and
images are allowed and can be abused.
- Create a minimal restricted sanitizer for the repository description,
which only allows what the postprocessor currently allows, which are
links and emojis.
- Added unit testing.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1202
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1122
(cherry picked from commit 631c87cc23)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Changed behavior to calculate package quota limit using package `creator
ID` instead of `owner ID`.
Currently, users are allowed to create an unlimited number of
organizations, each of which has its own package limit quota, resulting
in the ability for users to have unlimited package space in different
organization scopes. This fix will calculate package quota based on
`package version creator ID` instead of `package version owner ID`
(which might be organization), so that users are not allowed to take
more space than configured package settings.
Also, there is a side case in which users can publish packages to a
specific package version, initially published by different user, taking
that user package size quota. Version in fix should be better because
the total amount of space is limited to the quota for users sharing the
same organization scope.
System users (Ghost, ActionsUser, etc) have a negative id and may be the
author of a comment, either because it was created by a now deleted user
or via an action using a transient token.
The GetPossibleUserByID function has special cases related to system
users and will not fail if given a negative id.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1425
(cherry picked from commit 6a2d2fa243)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1458
Some mails such as issue creation mails are missing the reply-to-comment
address. This PR fixes that and specifies which comment types should get
a reply-possibility.
## Bug in Gitea
I ran into this bug when I accidentally used the wrong redirect URL for
the oauth2 provider when using mssql. But the oauth2 provider still got
added.
Most of the time, we use `Delete(&some{id: some.id})` or
`In(condition).Delete(&some{})`, which specify the conditions. But the
function uses `Delete(source)` when `source.Cfg` is a `TEXT` field and
not empty. This will cause xorm `Delete` function not working in mssql.
61ff91f960/models/auth/source.go (L234-L240)
## Reason
Because the `TEXT` field can not be compared in mssql, xorm doesn't
support it according to [this
PR](https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2062)
[related
code](b23798dc98/internal/statements/statement.go (L552-L558))
in xorm
```go
if statement.dialect.URI().DBType == schemas.MSSQL && (col.SQLType.Name == schemas.Text ||
col.SQLType.IsBlob() || col.SQLType.Name == schemas.TimeStampz) {
if utils.IsValueZero(fieldValue) {
continue
}
return nil, fmt.Errorf("column %s is a TEXT type with data %#v which cannot be as compare condition", col.Name, fieldValue.Interface())
}
}
```
When using the `Delete` function in xorm, the non-empty fields will
auto-set as conditions(perhaps some special fields are not?). If `TEXT`
field is not empty, xorm will return an error. I only found this usage
after searching, but maybe there is something I missing.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- On user deletion, delete action runners that the user has created.
- Add a database consistency check to remove action runners that have
nonexistent belonging owner.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1720
(cherry picked from commit 009ca7223d)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
The steps to reproduce it.
First, create a new oauth2 source.
Then, a user login with this oauth2 source.
Disable the oauth2 source.
Visit users -> settings -> security, 500 will be displayed.
This is because this page only load active Oauth2 sources but not all
Oauth2 sources.
See https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27718#issuecomment-1773743014
. Add a test to ensure its behavior.
Why this test uses `ProjectBoardID=0`? Because in `SearchOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means what it is. But in `IssueOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means there is no condition, and
`ProjectBoardID=db.NoConditionID` means the board ID = 0.
It's really confusing. Probably it's better to separate the db search
engine and the other issue search code. It's really two different
systems. As far as I can see, `IssueOptions` is not necessary for most
of the code, which has very simple issue search conditions.
1. remove unused function `MoveIssueAcrossProjectBoards`
2. extract the project board condition into a function
3. use db.NoCondition instead of -1. (BTW, the usage of db.NoCondition
is too confusing. Is there any way to avoid that?)
4. remove the unnecessary comment since the ctx refactor is completed.
5. Change `b.ID != 0` to `b.ID > 0`. It's more intuitive but I think
they're the same since board ID can't be negative.
