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>
To be able to easily test cases where the repository does not have any
code, where the git repo itself is completely uninitialized, lets
support a case where the `AutoInit` property is false.
For the sake of backwards compatibility, if the option is not set either
way, it will default to `true`.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Add a new member to `DeclarativeRepoOptions`: `WikiBranch`. If
specified, create a Wiki with the given branch, and a single "Home"
page.
This will be used by an upcoming test.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Lets introduce a new helper function,
`CreateDeclarativeRepoWithOptions`! This is almost the same as the
existing `CreateDeclarativeRepo` helper, but instead of taking a list of
random parameters the author thought of at the time of its introduction,
it takes a `DeclarativeRepoOptions` struct, with optional members.
This makes it easier to extend the function, as new members can be added
without breaking or having to update existing callsites, as long as the
newly added members default to compatible values.
`CreateDeclarativeRepo` is then reimplemented on top of the new
function. Callsites aren't updated yet, we can do that organically,
whenever touching code that uses the older function.
No new functionality is introduced just yet, this is merely a refactor.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Backport #30770
If an user is deactivated, it should not be in the list of users who are
suggested to be assigned or review-requested.
old assignees or reviewers are not affected.
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
(cherry picked from commit 022eac4ac8e59f861237cc1e02f7ef117eaf8e30)
Conflicts:
models/repo/user_repo_test.go
because there is one less fixture user compared to Gitea
When all repository units are deactivated except for the code unit, the activity tab will not be shown.
Since the activities tab also shows contributing stats, it would be good to show the activities tab also when only code is active.
This commit changes the behavior when the activities tab is shown.
Previous it would only be shown when Issues, Pull-Requests or Releases are activated. Now it would additionally be shown when the code unit is activated.
Refs: #3429
| Before (Code + Issues - Owner) | Before (Code - Viewer) | After (Code + Issues - Owner) | After (Code - Viewer) |
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
|  |  |  |  |
| | `/activity` returns 404 for everyone |  | - |
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3455
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-committed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
(cherry picked from commit c54896ba70)
When converting a `repo_model.Repository` to `api.Repository`, copy the
`ObjectFormatName` field too.
Fixes#3458.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 2385f3c9db)
When in the repository settings, visiting
- `LFS` to `/{owner}/{repo}/settings/lfs`
- `Find pointer files` to `/{owner}/{repo}/settings/lfs/pointers`
- `Find commits` to `/{owner}/{repo}/settings/lfs/find?oid=...`
failed with an error 500 because of an incorrect evaluation of the
template.
Regression introduced by
cbf923e87b
A test is added to visit the page and guard against future
regressions.
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3438
(cherry picked from commit 078229a5e4)
Also has a backport of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3465/files to ensure the test fails.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3451
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Fixes: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/30512
I think this does mean those tools would run on a potential `vendor`
directory, but I'm not sure we really support vendoring of dependencies
anymore.
`release` has a `vendor` prerequisite so likely the source tarballs
contain vendor files?
(cherry picked from commit 8e12ef911a1d10dedb03e3127c42ca76f9850aca)
Conflicts:
- Makefile
Manually adjusted the changes.
(cherry picked from commit 3918db10c8)
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)
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)
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)
When visiting a repos `/settings/units` page, highlight the active tab
properly: "Add more..." if the tab is displayed, or "Settings"
otherwise.
Fixes#3188.
Signed-off-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
(cherry picked from commit 65ed86e396)
* Split TestPullRequest out of AddTestPullRequestTask
* A Created field is added to the Issue table
* The Created field is set to the time (with nano resolution) on creation
* Record the nano time repo_module.PushUpdateOptions is created by the hook
* The decision to update a pull request created before a commit was
pushed is based on the time (with nano resolution) the git hook
was run and the Created field
It ensures the following happens:
* commit C is pushed
* the git hook queues AddTestPullRequestTask for processing and returns with success
* TestPullRequest is not called yet
* a pull request P with commit C as the head is created
* TestPullRequest runs and ignores P because it was created after the commit was received
When the "created" column is NULL, no verification is done, pull
requests that were created before the column was created in the
database cannot be newer than the latest call to a git hook.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2009
(cherry picked from commit 998a431747)
Conflicts:
models/forgejo_migrations/migrate.go
see https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3165#issuecomment-1755941
services/pull/pull.go
trivial conflicts
**Backport:** https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3046
This PR fixes an issue in the diff compare view, where when working on a fork that has not the same name as the upstream repo, the "View file" button links to a wrong, often missing, location.
Demonstration of this issue:
- Visit https://next.forgejo.org/mai-lapyst-test-org/upstream/compare/main...Mai-Lapyst/downstream:mai-lapyst-patch-1.
- Click the "View file" button of the patch.
- Get taken to `4fe947d522/README.md` (which does not exist and returns a 404) instead of `4fe947d522/README.md`. Note the different repository name (`upstream` vs `downstream`).
Co-authored-by: Mai-Lapyst <mai-lapyst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3077
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/1518
An attempt at adding an optional pronoun field for user profiles, as suggested here 3 years ago: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13990
I made this for [my own instance](https://git.gay/h) and didn't initially think I'd make a PR because of the previous closed issue, but I thought I'd ask the Forgejo matrix chat to see if there was any support and there was!
I'm told I should make a database migration, some help as to how to do that would be appreciated.
Co-authored-by: hazycora <hazysu@riseup.net>
Co-authored-by: Gergely Nagy <forgejo@gergo.csillger.hu>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/3076
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>
