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.
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>
[git-annex](https://git-annex.branchable.com/) is a more complicated cousin to
git-lfs, storing large files in an optional-download side content. Unlike lfs,
it allows mixing and matching storage remotes, so the content remote(s) doesn't
need to be on the same server as the git remote, making it feasible to scatter
a collection across cloud storage, old harddrives, or anywhere else storage can
be scavenged. Since this can get complicated, fast, it has a content-tracking
database (`git annex whereis`) to help find everything later.
The use-case we imagine for including it in Gitea is just the simple case, where
we're primarily emulating git-lfs: each repo has its large content at the same URL.
Our motivation is so we can self-host https://www.datalad.org/ datasets, which
currently are only hostable by fragilely scrounging together cloud storage --
and having to manage all the credentials associated with all the pieces -- or at
https://openneuro.org which is fragile in its own ways.
Supporting git-annex also allows multiple Gitea instance to be annex remotes for
each other, mirroring the content or otherwise collaborating the split up the
hosting costs.
Enabling
--------
TODO
HTTP
----
TODO
Permission Checking
-------------------
This tweaks the API in routers/private/serv.go to expose the calling user's
computed permission, instead of just returning HTTP 403.
This doesn't fit in super well. It's the opposite from how the git-lfs support is
done, where there's a complete list of possible subcommands and their matching
permission levels, and then the API compares the requested with the actual level
and returns HTTP 403 if the check fails.
But it's necessary. The main git-annex verbs, 'git-annex-shell configlist' and
'git-annex-shell p2pstdio' are both either read-only or read-write operations,
depending on the state on disk on either end of the connection and what the user
asked it to ask for, with no way to know before git-annex examines the situation.
So tell the level via GIT_ANNEX_READONLY and trust it to handle itself.
In the older Gogs version, the permission was directly read in cmd/serv.go:
```
mode, err = db.UserAccessMode(user.ID, repo)
```
- 966e925cf3/internal/cmd/serv.go (L334)
but in Gitea permission enforcement has been centralized in the API layer.
(perhaps so the cmd layer can avoid making direct DB connections?)
Deletion
--------
git-annex has this "lockdown" feature where it tries
really quite very hard to prevent you deleting its
data, to the point that even an rm -rf won't do it:
each file in annex/objects/ is nested inside a
folder with read-only permissions.
The recommended workaround is to run chmod -R +w when
you're sure you actually want to delete a repo. See
https://git-annex.branchable.com/internals/lockdown
So we edit util.RemoveAll() to do just that, so now
it's `chmod -R +w && rm -rf` instead of just `rm -rf`.
Backport #28023 by @6543
there was no check in place if a user could see a other user, if you
append e.g. `.rss`
(cherry picked from commit 69ea554e2362e5c4943c2463c2ec547bf631f18b)
Backport of #27915Fixes#27819
We have support for two factor logins with the normal web login and with
basic auth. For basic auth the two factor check was implemented at three
different places and you need to know that this check is necessary. This
PR moves the check into the basic auth itself.
(cherry picked from commit 00705da102be929dfa41519b030be3bdd8c68472)
Backport #27721 by @lng2020
Fix#27711
Co-authored-by: Nanguan Lin <70063547+lng2020@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 71803d33e395829e4b7cee2bd4ae078527106a48)
Backport #27615 by @lng2020
close#27601
The Docker registry has an internal version, which leads to 404
Co-authored-by: Nanguan Lin <70063547+lng2020@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 171950a0d45745743d519aeb547b2a93cfb6410d)
Backport #27446 by @sryze
storageHandler() is written as a middleware but is used as an endpoint
handler, and thus `next` is actually `nil`, which causes a null pointer
dereference when a request URL does not match the pattern (where it
calls `next.ServerHTTP()`).
Example CURL command to trigger the panic:
```
curl -I "http://yourhost/gitea//avatars/a"
```
Fixes#27409
---
Note: the diff looks big but it's actually a small change - all I did
was to remove the outer closure (and one level of indentation) ~and
removed the HTTP method and pattern checks as they seem redundant
because go-chi already does those checks~. You might want to check "Hide
whitespace" when reviewing it.
Alternative solution (a bit simpler): append `, misc.DummyOK` to the
route declarations that utilize `storageHandler()` - this makes it
return an empty response when the URL is invalid. I've tested this one
and it works too. Or maybe it would be better to return a 400 error in
that case (?)
Co-authored-by: Sergey Zolotarev <sryze@outlook.com>
(cherry picked from commit 4ffa683820188175570ea3a0faf9d93046042b91)
- 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-pick from eff097448b1ebd2a280fcdd55d10b1f6081e9ccd)
Conflicts:
modules/context/context_cookie.go
trivial context conflicts
routers/web/web.go
ctx.GetSiteCookie(setting.CookieRememberName) moved from services/auth/middleware.go
Backport #27127 by @earl-warren
- Use the correct total amount for pagination. Thereby correctly show
the pagination bare when there's more than one page of
followers/followings.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1477
(cherry picked from commit c1a136318be3bf72511bed108f2d67f2cf34e1b8)
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <109468362+earl-warren@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
(cherry picked from commit 1d6e5c8e5862e634081c943f346003c36e47415f)
Backport #26813 by @JakobDev
You can currently visit `{repo}/issues/new` and create a blank issue,
even if it's disabled. This PR fixes this,
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1356
Co-authored-by: JakobDev <jakobdev@gmx.de>
(cherry picked from commit 2cfabb68ffb4fe188cdbb323be46b300c85f0134)
Backport #26664 by @CaiCandong
> ### Description
> If a new branch is pushed, and the repository has a rule that would
require signed commits for the new branch, the commit is rejected with a
500 error regardless of whether it's signed.
>
> When pushing a new branch, the "old" commit is the empty ID
(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000). verifyCommits has no
provision for this and passes an invalid commit range to git rev-list.
Prior to 1.19 this wasn't an issue because only pre-existing individual
branches could be protected.
>
> I was able to reproduce with
[try.gitea.io/CraigTest/test](https://try.gitea.io/CraigTest/test),
which is set up with a blanket rule to require commits on all branches.
Fix#25565
Very thanks to @Craig-Holmquist-NTI for reporting the bug and suggesting
an valid solution!
Co-authored-by: CaiCandong <50507092+CaiCandong@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 93c36f395cf217b44e1f5a529c795a6202df8989)
Backport of #25613Fixes#25564Fixes#23191
- Api v2 search endpoint should return only the latest version matching
the query
- Api v3 search endpoint should return `take` packages not package
versions
(cherry picked from commit 762d4245fb22a927861d30c6314d81e27eb1a06a)
