It is possible to change some repo settings (its visibility, and
template status) via `git push` options: `-o repo.private=true`, `-o
repo.template=true`.
Previously, there weren't sufficient permission checks on these, and
anyone who could `git push` to a repository - including via an AGit
workflow! - was able to change either of these settings. To guard
against this, the pre-receive hook will now check if either of these
options are present, and if so, will perform additional permission
checks to ensure that these can only be set by a repository owner or
an administrator. Additionally, changing these settings is disabled for
forks, even for the fork's owner.
There's still a case where the owner of a repository can change the
visibility of it, and it will not propagate to forks (it propagates to
forks when changing the visibility via the API), but that's an
inconsistency, not a security issue.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Signed-off-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
(cherry picked from commit 8eba631f8d)
Ref https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2831
Removed from:
- form for creating comment
- form for updating comment
- popup reviewing form
- line reviewing form
- I did not check the use of textarea.tmpl but I belive its used for issue templates, so also removed
- I did not check the use of box.tmpl, could not get any comments on compare
EasyMDE is left for these pages:
- release notes editor
- wiki editor
(cherry picked from commit 703aee4cad)
When sending notification emails about a release, use a properly
formatted, RFC-compliant message id, rather than the release's HTML URL
wrapped in angle brackets (which would not be compliant).
Fixes#3105.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit b0c0167c54)
The ARG RELEASE_VERSION set in the build-env image does not propagate
to the images that follow. As a result the value of the version label
is always empty.
This should have been caught by the test in the CI but although it
notified the problem in the output, it did not fail. Upgrade to the
forgejo-build-publish version that fixes this false positive.
(cherry picked from commit 97189d41f3)
This is a continuation of #2728, with a test case added.
Fixes#2633.
I kept @zareck 's commit as is, because I believe it is correct. We can't move the check to `owner.CanForkRepo()`, because `owner` is the future owner of the forked repo, and may be an organization. We need to check the admin permission of the `doer`, like in the case of repository creation.
I verified that the test fails without the `ForkRepository` change, and passes with it.
Co-authored-by: Cassio Zareck <cassiomilczareck@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3277
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Co-committed-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit ea4071ca9f)
- Previously translations were escaped, but now translations are
accepted as-is and will be rendered as HTML. Use `TrString` to escape
the translation value.
- Adds integration test.
- Regression of 65248945c9.
- Resolves#3260
(cherry picked from commit a0f47b8de7)
- This is a partial revert of c2280a2009,
it was already fixed upstream, but not for the `.basic` variant.
- Resolves#3252
(cherry picked from commit 7fcb9c3636)
Fix#30378
(cherry picked from commit 0fe9f93eb4c94d55e43b18b9c3cc6d513a34c0b5)
Conflicts:
- models/organization/org.go
- services/repository/delete.go
- services/user/delete.go
In all three cases, conflicts were resolved by manually adding
the lines added by the Gitea patch, keeping the Forgejo code
surrounding them.
- `RemoveFilesFromIndex` used an hardcoded empty commit ID for the SHA1
object format, this would result in an error if the repository was
initialized to use the sha256 object format. Get the object format of
the Git repository and use that to get the empty commit id.
- Adds unit test.
- Resolves#3184
(cherry picked from commit eeaef556c2)
- Add another selector to the list, which corresponds to the container
of the archive buttons on the release page of an repository.
- Seems like that 8d2b764607 missed
another case.
- Resolves#3180
(cherry picked from commit 39c3295f68)
Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/30428
---
Conflict resolution: trivial and move test to own subtest run directly
after `Normal`.
(cherrypicked commit 9466fec879f4f2c88c7c1e7a5cffba319282ab66)
(cherry picked from commit db39b8f4a7)
Backport #30392 by @jam7
This patch improves the migration from gitbucket to gitea.
The gitbucket uses it's own internal perPage value (= 25) for paging and
ignore per_page arguments in the requested URL. This cause gitea to
migrate only 25 issues and 25 PRs from gitbucket repository. This may
not happens on old gitbucket. But recent gitbucket 4.40 or 4.38.4 has
this problem.
This patch change to use this internally hardcoded perPage of gitbucket
as gitea's maxPerPage numer when migrating from gitbucket. There are
several perPage values in gitbucket like 25 for Isseus/PRs and 10 for
Releases. Some of those API doesn't support paging yet. It sounds
difficult to implement, but using the minimum number among them worked
out very well. So, I use 10 in this patch.
Brief descriptions of problems and this patch are also available in
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/30316.
In addition, I'm not sure what kind of test cases are possible to write
here. It's a test for migration, so it requires testing gitbucket server
and gitea server, I guess. Please let me know if it is possible to write
such test cases here. Thanks!
Co-authored-by: Kazushi (Jam) Marukawa <jam@pobox.com>
(cherry picked from commit b941d7485b53e5dd093a1cce3c9ff47c91d4fc58)
