This changes the PR merge process such that annexed files contained in the to-be-merged commits are copied from the head repository to the base repository as part of the merge, similar to how it is done for LFS files.
Fixes#11.
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-aneksajo/forgejo-aneksajo/pulls/62
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
This adds a new endpoint under `/git-annex-p2phttp` which acts as an
authenticating proxy to git-annex' p2phttp server. This makes it
possible to set `annex+<server-url>/git-annex-p2phttp` as
`remote.<name>.annexurl` and use git-annex fully over http(s) with the
normal credentials and access tokens provided by Forgejo.
Fixes#25.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/matrss/forgejo-aneksajo/pulls/42
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
This adds some rudimentary tests that drop files in a repository's clone
as well as from a repository on Forgejo.
Fixes#4.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/matrss/forgejo-aneksajo/pulls/47
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
The `git annex testremote` command runs a built-in set of tests against
a remote. It cannot hurt to check our implementation of a git-annex
remote against it too.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/matrss/forgejo-aneksajo/pulls/48
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
The previous implementation both uploaded to the annex and pushed to the
git repository. This meant that the tests checking that uploads without
permission fail actually could pass when the git push failed but the
git-annex upload didn't. The tests didn't catch the situation where
unauthorized users could modify the annex.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/matrss/forgejo-aneksajo/pulls/46
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
This implements support for uploading files into the annex using the web
interface.
If a repository is a git-annex-enabled repository all files will be
added to it using git annex add. This means that the repository's
configuration for what to put into the annex (annex.largefiles in
gitattributes) will be respected.
Plain git repositories without git-annex will work as before, directly
uploading to git.
Fixes#5.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/matrss/forgejo-aneksajo/pulls/21
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
Co-committed-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
This updates the repo index/file view endpoints so annex files match the way
LFS files are rendered, making annexed files accessible via the web instead of
being black boxes only accessible by git clone.
This mostly just duplicates the existing LFS logic. It doesn't try to combine itself
with the existing logic, to make merging with upstream easier. If upstream ever
decides to accept, I would like to try to merge the redundant logic.
The one bit that doesn't directly copy LFS is my choice to hide annex-symlinks.
LFS files are always _pointer files_ and therefore always render with the "file"
icon and no special label, but annex files come in two flavours: symlinks or
pointer files. I've conflated both kinds to try to give a consistent experience.
The tests in here ensure the correct download link (/media, from the last PR)
renders in both the toolbar and, if a binary file (like most annexed files will be),
in the main pane, but it also adds quite a bit of code to make sure text files
that happen to be annexed are dug out and rendered inline like LFS files are.
Previously, Gitea's LFS support allowed direct-downloads of LFS content,
via http://$HOSTNAME:$PORT/$USER/$REPO/media/branch/$BRANCH/$FILE
Expand that grace to git-annex too. Now /media should provide the
relevant *content* from the .git/annex/objects/ folder.
This adds tests too. And expands the tests to try symlink-based annexing,
since /media implicitly supports both that and pointer-file-based annexing.
The git repository must be closed after using it. Without this change
some tests started to fail due to the lingering repository running into
a timeout.
This moves the `annexObjectPath()` helper out of the tests and into a
dedicated sub-package as `annex.ContentLocation()`, and expands it with
`.Pointer()` (which validates using `git annex examinekey`),
`.IsAnnexed()` and `.Content()` to make it a more useful module.
The tests retain their own wrapper version of `ContentLocation()`
because I tried to follow close to the API modules/lfs uses, which in
terms of abstract `git.Blob` and `git.TreeEntry` objects, not in terms
of `repoPath string`s which are more convenient for the tests.
This makes HTTP symmetric with SSH clone URLs.
This gives us the fancy feature of _anonymous_ downloads,
so people can access datasets without having to set up an
account or manage ssh keys.
Previously, to access "open access" data shared this way,
users would need to:
1. Create an account on gitea.example.com
2. Create ssh keys
3. Upload ssh keys (and make sure to find and upload the correct file)
4. `git clone git@gitea.example.com:user/dataset.git`
5. `cd dataset`
6. `git annex get`
This cuts that down to just the last three steps:
1. `git clone https://gitea.example.com/user/dataset.git`
2. `cd dataset`
3. `git annex get`
This is significantly simpler for downstream users, especially for those
unfamiliar with the command line.
Unfortunately there's no uploading. While git-annex supports uploading
over HTTP to S3 and some other special remotes, it seems to fail on a
_plain_ HTTP remote. See https://github.com/neuropoly/gitea/issues/7
and https://git-annex.branchable.com/forum/HTTP_uploads/#comment-ce28adc128fdefe4c4c49628174d9b92.
This is not a major loss since no one wants uploading to be anonymous anyway.
To support private repos, I had to hunt down and patch a secret extra security
corner that Gitea only applies to HTTP for some reason (services/auth/basic.go).
This was guided by https://git-annex.branchable.com/tips/setup_a_public_repository_on_a_web_site/
Fixes https://github.com/neuropoly/gitea/issues/3
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Guay-Paquet <mathieu.guaypaquet@polymtl.ca>
Fixes https://github.com/neuropoly/gitea/issues/11
Tests:
* `git annex init`
* `git annex copy --from origin`
* `git annex copy --to origin`
over:
* ssh
for:
* the owner
* a collaborator
* a read-only collaborator
* a stranger
in a
* public repo
* private repo
And then confirms:
* Deletion of the remote repo (to ensure lockdown isn't messing with us: https://git-annex.branchable.com/internals/lockdown/#comment-0cc5225dc5abe8eddeb843bfd2fdc382)
------
To support all this:
* Add util.FileCmp()
* Patch withKeyFile() so it can be nested in other copies of itself
-------
Many thanks to Mathieu for giving style tips and catching several bugs,
including a subtle one in util.filecmp() which neutered it.
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Guay-Paquet <mathieu.guay-paquet@polymtl.ca>
Co-authored-by: Matthias Riße <m.risse@fz-juelich.de>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8622
- Do not try to rebase a pull request when it is zero commits behind. We can trust this number as before merging a repository the status of the pull request is mergeable and thus not in a conflict checking stage (where this would be updated).
- This resolves a issue where `git-replay` would rebase a pull request when this is not needed and causes to lose the signature of Git commits and commit IDs as shown in the pullrequest commits timeline.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#8619
- Add a simple integration test that simply checks that after merging a up-to-date pull request via the rebase style that the commit ID didn't change. This demonstrates that it didn't do needlessly rebasing.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8624
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8475closes#7946
- The `rpmsRepoPattern` regex has been fixed to handle releases with dots correctly. For example, the version `0.9.0-alt1.git.17.g2ba905d` is valid, just like `0.1.0-1.n1` mentioned in the issue (https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/7946#issue-1628991)
- getEntries now returns entry names. In the integration tests, there were lines like:
```go
assert.Equal(t, []string{"", ""}, result.ProvideNames)
```
and it’s unclear how such test logic could have ever worked correctly (fixes problems with deps https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/7946#issuecomment-5109795)
- ALT is an acronym for ALT Linux Team, so `Alt` was replaced with `ALT`. Strictly speaking, it should probably be `ALT Linux`, but since we use `Arch` instead of `Arch Linux`, this seems fine. Also, Distrowatch shows `Arch`/`ALT` in its dropdown, so it’s consistent.
- The strings `"Alt Linux Team"` and `"Sisyphus"` in the `Origin` and `Suite` fields have been replaced with `setting.AppName` and `"Unknown"`. `Unknown` is a valid value and is set by default, so this won’t cause any issues.
- The documentation link has been fixed: (404 docs.gitea.com/usage/packages/alt/ -> 200 forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/packages/alt/)
Co-authored-by: Maxim Slipenko <maks1ms@altlinux.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8480
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8450
The argument order for `ValidatePullRequest` is to first give the new commitID and then the old commit ID.
This results in reviews not being marked as stale when they are not stale and reviews as not stale when they are stale. The test will fail if the fix is not present.
Add testing for the following three scenarios:
1. A review is made, the PR is updated and as a consequence the PR's diff is changed. The review is now marked as stale.
2. A review is made but in the meantime the PR is updated and the review is submitted on a older commit ID. If the diff changed the review is marked as stale.
3. A review that was made against a older commit ID is no longer marked as stale if the PR is force-pushed to that older commit ID.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8454
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8374
- Make the migration to add an index a noop - do not remove it as it would break v12.next & v13.next
- Keep the logic that relies on finding the last run, only always fail to find which is the same as assuming each run is one of a kind
Refs forgejo/forgejo#8373
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8390
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7749
This adds pasted images to the dropzone. To provide the same experience
as when using the dropzone. This gives the possibility to preview and
delete the image. Additionally it provides a copy button to copy the
markdown code for inserting the image.
Fixes#4588
Co-authored-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8362
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8330Fixes#8329
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
### Documentation
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
Co-authored-by: floss4good <floss4good@disroot.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8349
Reviewed-by: floss4good <floss4good@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8326
- fix: API must use headGitRepo instead of ctx.Repo.GitRepo for comparing
- fix: make API /repos/{owner}/{repo}/compare/{basehead} work with forks
- add test coverage for both fixes and the underlying function `parseCompareInfo`
- refactor and improve part of the helpers from `tests/integration/api_helper_for_declarative_test.go`
- remove a few wrong or misleading comments
Refs forgejo/forgejo#7978
## Note on the focus of the PR
It was initially created to address a regression introduced in v12. But the tests that verify it is fixed discovered a v11.0 bug. They cannot conveniently be separated because they both relate to the same area of code that was previously not covered by any test.
## Note on v11.0 backport
It must be manually done by cherry-picking all commits up to and not including `fix: API must use headGitRepo instead of ctx.Repo.GitRepo for comparing` because it is v12 specific.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
### Documentation
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8331
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8304
- When doing CRUD actions, the commiter and author are reconstructed and
do not contain the doer's ID. Make sure to pass this ID along so it can
be used to verify the rules of instance signing for CRUD actions.
- Regression of forgejo/forgejo#7693. It seems that previously this
didn't work correctly as it would not care about a empty ID.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#8278
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8318
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8296Closes: #8293
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Co-authored-by: Lucas Schwiderski <lucas@lschwiderski.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8317
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: forgejo-backport-action <forgejo-backport-action@noreply.codeberg.org>
Related: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3950#issue-785253, https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3950#issuecomment-1998551.
## Links in dropdown
* move _admin only_ User details link here, give it always-visible text
* add new _self only_ Edit profile link here
* move RSS feed link here
* add new Atom feed link here, previously unadvertised
* add new SSH keys link here (`.keys`), previously unadvertised
* add new GPG keys link here (`.gpg`), previously unadvertised
* move Block/Unblock button here
* move Report abuse link here
If primary action is available (Follow/Unfollow), dropdown with more actions goes after it. If not, it is in line with followers, in place where RSS feed button used to be.
## New dropdown
Related: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/23, https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3853, https://codeberg.org/0ko/forgejo/issues/2.
Implemented a new dropdown: noJS-usable, JS-enhanced for better keyboard navigation and a11y.
Styling is mostly same as the existing ones have, but row density depends on `@media` pointer type.
My choice of CSS properties have been influenced of these:
* 72a3adb16b
* 51dd2293ca
Inspired-by: KiranMantha <kiranv.mantha@gmail.com>
Inspired-by: Lucas Larroche <lucas@larroche.com>
Co-authored-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7906
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
add links to the comments that appear in issue when changing milestones and projects
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7992
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Co-committed-by: Robert Wolff <mahlzahn@posteo.de>
Two pull requests were merged at the same time
- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7699
- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7508
And added conflicting structs ActionRun modules/structs. That broke
the forgejo development branch and a quick fix was made to resolve
the name conflict.
- https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8066
However that creates an undesirable duplication of two structures that
serve the same purpose but are different.
- Remove RepoActionRun and replace it with ActionRun
- convert.ToActionRun has one more argument, the doer, because it
is determined differently in the context of webhooks or API
### Tests
- No need because the two pull requests involved already have good coverage.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8250
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: klausfyhn <klausfyhn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Christopher Besch <mail@chris-besch.com>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
The text should be two sentences, or at the very least separated by a semicolon rather than a comma.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8197
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: John Veness <john-codeberg@jveness.co.uk>
Co-committed-by: John Veness <john-codeberg@jveness.co.uk>
* Add the `notify-email` column / NotifyEmail to ActionRun and set it:
* services/actions/workflows.go `Dispatch`
* services/actions/schedule_tasks.go `CreateScheduleTask`
* services/actions/notifier_helper.go `handleWorkflows`
* Only send an email if the workflow has `enable-email-notifications: true` by having `MailActionRun` return immediately if `NotifyEmail` is false.
* Ignore or silently fail on `enable-email-notifications: true` parsing errors. Reporting such errors belongs in workflow validation, not when it is evaluated for the notifications.
* Add unit and integration tests.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/8187
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
### Documentation
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8242
Reviewed-by: Christopher Besch <mail@chris-besch.com>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
fixes: #8119, replaces #8135
Bug likely introduced in 5eeccecafc
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
### Documentation
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8234
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Co-committed-by: oliverpool <git@olivier.pfad.fr>
Automerge can be ignored when the following race happens:
* Conflict check is happening on a repository and
`pr.Status = issues_model.PullRequestStatusChecking` for all open pull
requests (this happens every time a pull request is merged).
* While the conflict check is ongoing, an event (Forgejo Actions being
successful for instance) happens and and `StartPRCheckAndAutoMerge*` is called.
* Because `pr.CanAutoMerge()` is false, the pull request is not
selected and not added to the automerge queue.
* When the conflict check completes and `pr.CanAutoMerge()` becomes
true, there no longer is a task in the auto merge queue and the
auto merge does not happen.
This is fixed by adding a task to the auto merge queue when the conflict check for a pull request completes. This is done when the mutx protecting the conflict check task is released to prevent a deadlock when a synchronous queues are used in the following situation:
* the conflict check task finds the pull request is mergeable
* it schedules the auto merge tasks that finds it must be merged
* merging concludes with scheduling a conflict check task
Avoid an extra loop where a conflict check task queues an auto merge task that will schedule a conflict check task if the pull request can be merged. The auto merge row is removed from the database before merging. It would otherwise be removed after the merge commit is received via the git hook which happens asynchronously and can lead to a race.
StartPRCheckAndAutoMerge is modified to re-use HeadCommitID when available, such as when called after a pull request conflict check.
---
A note on tests: they cover the new behavior, i.e. automerge being triggered by a successful conflict check. This is also on the critical paths for every test that involve creating, merging or updating a pull request.
- `tests/integration/git_test.go`
- `tests/integration/actions_commit_status_test.go`
- `tests/integration/api_helper_for_declarative_test.go`
- `tests/integration/patch_status_test.go`
- `tests/integration/pull_merge_test.go`
The [missing fixture file](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189/files#diff-b86fdd79108b3ba3cb2e56ffcfd1be2a7b32f46c) for the auto merge table can be verified to be necessary simply by removing it an observing that the integration tests fail.
The [scheduling of the auto merge task](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189/files#diff-9489262e93967f6bb2db41837f37c06f4e70d978) in `testPR` can be verified to be required by moving it in the `testPRProtected` function and observing that the tests hang forever because of the deadlock.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189): <!--number 8189 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZG8gbm90IGlnbm9yZSBhdXRvbWVyZ2Ugd2hpbGUgYSBQUiBpcyBjaGVja2luZyBmb3IgY29uZmxpY3Rz-->do not ignore automerge while a PR is checking for conflicts<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8189
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Lucas <sclu1034@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
This implements the UI controls and information displays necessary to allow reviewing pull requests by stepping through commits individually.
Notable changes:
- Within the PR page, commit links now stay in the PR context by navigating to `{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{id}/commits/{sha}`
- When showing a single commit in the "Files changed" tab, the commit header containing commit message and metadata is displayed
- I dropped the existing buttons, since they make less sense to me in the PR context
- The SHA links to the separate, dedicated commit view
- "Previous"/"Next" buttons have been added to that header to allow stepping through commits
- Reviews can be submitted in "single commit" view
Talking points:
- The "Showing only changes from" banner made sense when that view was limited (e.g. review submit was disabled). Now that it's on par with the "all commits" view, and visually distinct due to the commit header, this banner could potentially be dropped.
Closes: #5670#5126#5671#2281#8084
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [x] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7155
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Schwiderski <lucas@lschwiderski.de>
Co-committed-by: Lucas Schwiderski <lucas@lschwiderski.de>
- Only check for the `object_format_name` field if SHA256 is supported.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8202
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
