## 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.
Part of #23318
Add menu in repo settings to allow for repo admin to decide not just if
projects are enabled or disabled per repo, but also which kind of
projects (repo-level/owner-level) are enabled. If repo projects
disabled, don't show the projects tab.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
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>
I noticed, that the push mirrors endpoint, is the only endpoint which
returns the times in long format rather than as time.Time().
I think the behavior should be consistent across the project.
----
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
This PR changes the time format used in API responses for all
push_mirror endpoints which return a push mirror.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
According to the GitHub API Spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-an-organization-secret
Merge the Create and Update secret into a single API.
- Remove the `CreateSecretOption` struct and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateSecretOption` in `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Update the `CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` to use `CreateOrUpdateSecretOption`
instead of `UpdateSecretOption`
- Remove the `CreateOrgSecret` function in
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go` and replace it with
`CreateOrUpdateOrgSecret`
- Update the Swagger documentation in
`routers/api/v1/swagger/options.go` and `templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl`
to reflect the changes in the struct names and function names
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/580
- Return a `upload_field` to any release API response, which points to
the API URL for uploading new assets.
- Adds unit test.
- Adds integration testing to verify URL is returned correctly and that
upload endpoint actually works
---------
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- Add a new `CreateSecretOption` struct for creating secrets
- Implement a `CreateOrgSecret` function to create a secret in an
organization
- Add a new route in `api.go` to handle the creation of organization
secrets
- Update the Swagger template to include the new `CreateOrgSecret` API
endpoint
---------
Signed-off-by: appleboy <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
- Add a new function `CountOrgSecrets` in the file
`models/secret/secret.go`
- Add a new file `modules/structs/secret.go`
- Add a new function `ListActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/api.go`
- Add a new file `routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
- Add a new function `listActionsSecrets` in the file
`routers/api/v1/org/action.go`
go-sdk: https://gitea.com/gitea/go-sdk/pulls/629
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Archived labels
This adds the structure to allow for archived labels.
Archived labels are, just like closed milestones or projects, a medium to hide information without deleting it.
It is especially useful if there are outdated labels that should no longer be used without deleting the label entirely.
## Changes
1. UI and API have been equipped with the support to mark a label as archived
2. The time when a label has been archived will be stored in the DB
## Outsourced for the future
There's no special handling for archived labels at the moment.
This will be done in the future.
## Screenshots
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/25237
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
