Fix#32886
Add `last_committer_date` and `last_author_date` in the content API
which is not implemented by Github API v3 at the moment.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
The diff stats are no longer part of the diff generation.
Use `GetDiffShortStat` instead to get the total number of changed files,
added lines, and deleted lines.
As such, `gitdiff.GetDiff` can be simplified:
It should not do more than expected.
And do not run "git diff --shortstat" for pull list. Fix#31492
* download endpoint has to use 302 redirect
* fake blob download used if direct download not possible
* downloading v3 artifacts not possible
New repo apis based on GitHub Rest V3
- GET /runs/{run}/artifacts (Cannot use run index of url due to not
being unique)
- GET /artifacts
- GET + DELETE /artifacts/{artifact_id}
- GET /artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip
- (GET /artifacts/{artifact_id}/zip/raw this is a workaround for a http
302 assertion in actions/toolkit)
- api docs removed this is protected by a signed url like the internal
artifacts api and no longer usable with any token or swagger
- returns http 401 if the signature is invalid
- or change the artifact id
- or expired after 1 hour
Closes#33353Closes#32124
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This adds an endpoint (`/orgs/{org}/rename`) to rename organizations.
I've modeled the endpoint using the rename user endpoint --
`/admin/users/{username}/rename` -- as base.
It is the 1st time I wrote a new API endpoint (I've tried to follow the
rename users endpoint code while writing it). So feel free to ping me if
there is something wrong or missing.
Resolves#32995
---------
Signed-off-by: Bruno Sofiato <bruno.sofiato@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR created a mock webhook server in the tests and added integration
tests for generic webhooks.
It also fixes bugs in package webhooks and pull request comment
webhooks.
## Solves
Currently for rules to re-order them you have to alter the creation
date. so you basicly have to delete and recreate them in the right
order. This is more than just inconvinient ...
## Solution
Add a new col for prioritization
## Demo WebUI Video
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/92182a31-9705-4ac5-b6e3-9bb74108cbd1
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
There were too many patches to the Render system, it's really difficult
to make further improvements.
This PR clears the legacy problems and fix TODOs.
1. Rename `RenderContext.Type` to `RenderContext.MarkupType` to clarify
its usage.
2. Use `ContentMode` to replace `meta["mode"]` and `IsWiki`, to clarify
the rendering behaviors.
3. Use "wiki" mode instead of "mode=gfm + wiki=true"
4. Merge `renderByType` and `renderByFile`
5. Add more comments
----
The problem of "mode=document": in many cases it is not set, so many
non-comment places use comment's hard line break incorrectly
This PR introduces a new event which is similar as Github's. When a new
commit status submitted, the event will be trigged. That means, now we
can receive all feedback from CI/CD system in webhooks or other notify
systems.
ref:
https://docs.github.com/en/webhooks/webhook-events-and-payloads#statusFix#20749
This introduces a new flag `BlockAdminMergeOverride` on the branch
protection rules that prevents admins/repo owners from bypassing branch
protection rules and merging without approvals or failing status checks.
Fixes#17131
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
close#25833
Currently, the information for "requested_reviewers" is only included in
the webhook event for reviews. I would like to suggest adding this
information to the webhook event for "PullRequest comment" as well, as
they both pertain to the "PullRequest" event.
Also, The reviewer information for the Pull Request is not displayed
when it is approved or rejected.
fix#23668
My plan:
* In the `actions.list` method, if workflow is selected and IsAdmin,
check whether the on event contains `workflow_dispatch`. If so, display
a `Run workflow` button to allow the user to manually trigger the run.
* Providing a form that allows users to select target brach or tag, and
these parameters can be configured in yaml
* Simple form validation, `required` input cannot be empty
* Add a route `/actions/run`, and an `actions.Run` method to handle
* Add `WorkflowDispatchPayload` struct to pass the Webhook event payload
to the runner when triggered, this payload carries the `inputs` values
and other fields, doc: [workflow_dispatch
payload](https://docs.github.com/en/webhooks/webhook-events-and-payloads#workflow_dispatch)
Other PRs
* the `Workflow.WorkflowDispatchConfig()` method still return non-nil
when workflow_dispatch is not defined. I submitted a PR
https://gitea.com/gitea/act/pulls/85 to fix it. Still waiting for them
to process.
Behavior should be same with github, but may cause confusion. Here's a
quick reminder.
*
[Doc](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#workflow_dispatch)
Said: This event will `only` trigger a workflow run if the workflow file
is `on the default branch`.
* If the workflow yaml file only exists in a non-default branch, it
cannot be triggered. (It will not even show up in the workflow list)
* If the same workflow yaml file exists in each branch at the same time,
the version of the default branch is used. Even if `Use workflow from`
selects another branch
```yaml
name: Docker Image CI
on:
workflow_dispatch:
inputs:
logLevel:
description: 'Log level'
required: true
default: 'warning'
type: choice
options:
- info
- warning
- debug
tags:
description: 'Test scenario tags'
required: false
type: boolean
boolean_default_true:
description: 'Test scenario tags'
required: true
type: boolean
default: true
boolean_default_false:
description: 'Test scenario tags'
required: false
type: boolean
default: false
environment:
description: 'Environment to run tests against'
type: environment
required: true
default: 'environment values'
number_required_1:
description: 'number '
type: number
required: true
default: '100'
number_required_2:
description: 'number'
type: number
required: true
default: '100'
number_required_3:
description: 'number'
type: number
required: true
default: '100'
number_1:
description: 'number'
type: number
required: false
number_2:
description: 'number'
type: number
required: false
number_3:
description: 'number'
type: number
required: false
env:
inputs_logLevel: ${{ inputs.logLevel }}
inputs_tags: ${{ inputs.tags }}
inputs_boolean_default_true: ${{ inputs.boolean_default_true }}
inputs_boolean_default_false: ${{ inputs.boolean_default_false }}
inputs_environment: ${{ inputs.environment }}
inputs_number_1: ${{ inputs.number_1 }}
inputs_number_2: ${{ inputs.number_2 }}
inputs_number_3: ${{ inputs.number_3 }}
inputs_number_required_1: ${{ inputs.number_required_1 }}
inputs_number_required_2: ${{ inputs.number_required_2 }}
inputs_number_required_3: ${{ inputs.number_required_3 }}
jobs:
build:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: ls -la
- run: env | grep inputs
- run: echo ${{ inputs.logLevel }}
- run: echo ${{ inputs.boolean_default_false }}
```
---------
Co-authored-by: TKaxv_7S <954067342@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Denys Konovalov <kontakt@denyskon.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
If the assign the pull request review to a team, it did not show the
members of the team in the "requested_reviewers" field, so the field was
null. As a solution, I added the team members to the array.
fix#31764
Fixes#22722
### Problem
Currently, it is not possible to force push to a branch with branch
protection rules in place. There are often times where this is necessary
(CI workflows/administrative tasks etc).
The current workaround is to rename/remove the branch protection,
perform the force push, and then reinstate the protections.
### Solution
Provide an additional section in the branch protection rules to allow
users to specify which users with push access can also force push to the
branch. The default value of the rule will be set to `Disabled`, and the
UI is intuitive and very similar to the `Push` section.
It is worth noting in this implementation that allowing force push does
not override regular push access, and both will need to be enabled for a
user to force push.
This applies to manual force push to a remote, and also in Gitea UI
updating a PR by rebase (which requires force push)
This modifies the `BranchProtection` API structs to add:
- `enable_force_push bool`
- `enable_force_push_whitelist bool`
- `force_push_whitelist_usernames string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_teams string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_deploy_keys bool`
### Updated Branch Protection UI:
<img width="943" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/7491899c-d816-45d5-be84-8512abd156bf">
### Pull Request `Update branch by Rebase` option enabled with source
branch `test` being a protected branch:
<img width="1038" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/57ead13e-9006-459f-b83c-7079e6f4c654">
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR modifies the structs for editing and creating org teams to allow
team names to be up to 255 characters. The previous maximum length was
30 characters.
Parse base path and tree path so that media links can be correctly
created with /media/.
Resolves#31294
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR adds some fields to the gitea webhook payload that
[openproject](https://www.openproject.org/) expects to exists in order
to process the webhooks.
These fields do exists in Github's webhook payload so adding them makes
Gitea's native webhook more compatible towards Github's.
Using the API, a user's _source_id_ can be set in the _CreateUserOption_
model, but the field is not returned in the _User_ model.
This PR updates the _User_ model to include the field _source_id_ (The
ID of the Authentication Source).
- Add new `Compare` struct to represent comparison between two commits
- Introduce new API endpoint `/compare/*` to get commit comparison
information
- Create new file `repo_compare.go` with the `Compare` struct definition
- Add new file `compare.go` in `routers/api/v1/repo` to handle
comparison logic
- Add new file `compare.go` in `routers/common` to define `CompareInfo`
struct
- Refactor `ParseCompareInfo` function to use `common.CompareInfo`
struct
- Update Swagger documentation to include the new API endpoint for
commit comparison
- Remove duplicate `CompareInfo` struct from
`routers/web/repo/compare.go`
- Adjust base path in Swagger template to be relative (`/api/v1`)
GitHub API
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/commits?apiVersion=2022-11-28#compare-two-commits
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Caused by: #23106
Fix:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/actions/runs/8274650046/job/22640335697
1. Delete `UserBadgeList` in `options.go`, because it wasn't used. (The
struct defined in `options.go` is the struct used to parse the request
body)
2. Move `BadgeList` struct under `routers/api/v1/swagger` folder which
response should be defined in.
Add new option:
`visible`: witch can hide a specific field of the form or the created
content afterwards
It is a string array witch can contain `form` and `content`. If only
`form` is present, it wont show up in the created issue afterwards and
the other way around. By default it sets both except for markdown
As they are optional and github don't have any similar thing, it is non
breaking and also do not conflict with it.
With this you can:
- define "post issue creation" elements like a TODO list to track an
issue state
- make sure to have a checkbox that reminds the user to check for a
thing but dont have it in the created issue afterwards
- define markdown for the created issue (was the downside of using yaml
instead of md in the past)
- ...
## Demo
```yaml
name: New Contribution
description: External Contributor creating a pull
body:
- type: checkboxes
id: extern-todo
visible: [form]
attributes:
label: Contribution Guidelines
options:
- label: I checked there exist no similar feature to be extended
required: true
- label: I did read the CONTRIBUTION.MD
required: true
- type: checkboxes
id: intern-todo
visible: [content]
attributes:
label: Maintainer Check-List
options:
- label: Does this pull follow the KISS principe
- label: Checked if internal bord was notifyed
# ....
```
[Demo
Video](https://cloud.obermui.de/s/tm34fSAbJp9qw9z/download/vid-20240220-152751.mkv)
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
---------
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
With this option, it is possible to require a linear commit history with
the following benefits over the next best option `Rebase+fast-forward`:
The original commits continue existing, with the original signatures
continuing to stay valid instead of being rewritten, there is no merge
commit, and reverting commits becomes easier.
Closes#24906
Fixes#27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- Modify the `Password` field in `CreateUserOption` struct to remove the
`Required` tag
- Update the `v1_json.tmpl` template to include the `email` field and
remove the `password` field
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
