_This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting
some parts, see below_
## Context
In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication.
The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a
given token. For instance:
- Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the
header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872)
- TeamCity #18667
- Gitea instances #20267
- SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this
is my actual personal need :)
## Proposed solution
Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing
it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all
present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307).
This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872.
As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and
improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple
`Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and
`Basic` switches):
The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase
justifying otherwise.
## Questions
- What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind
- ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new
file, or is there a command for that?~~
- ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I
drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~
## Done as well:
- add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the
`Authorization` logic there
_Closes #19872_
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This patch provide a mechanism to disable
[sitemap](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/18407).
Signed-off-by: Xinyu Zhou <i@sourcehut.net>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
The OAuth spec [defines two types of
client](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-2.1),
confidential and public. Previously Gitea assumed all clients to be
confidential.
> OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to authenticate
securely with the authorization server (i.e., ability to
> maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
>
> confidential
> Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., client implemented on a secure server with
> restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
>
> **public
> Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., clients executing on the device used by the resource
owner, such as an installed native application or a web browser-based
application), and incapable of secure client authentication via any
other means.**
>
> The client type designation is based on the authorization server's
definition of secure authentication and its acceptable exposure levels
of client credentials. The authorization server SHOULD NOT make
assumptions about the client type.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.4
> Authorization servers MUST record the client type in the client
registration details in order to identify and process requests
accordingly.
Require PKCE for public clients:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.1
> Authorization servers SHOULD reject authorization requests from native
apps that don't use PKCE by returning an error message
Fixes#21299
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This stype name is also used in many repos, example:
[``README_ZH.md``](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/README_ZH.md)
Signed-off-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
According to the OAuth spec
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-6 when "Refreshing
an Access Token"
> The authorization server MUST ... require client authentication for
confidential clients
Fixes#21418
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This prevents a 500 response, because null pointer exceptions in
rendering the template.
This happends bc the repoId is not in the repoMap because it is delete
fix#19076
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
At the moment, If admin disable Packages, still show the Packages on the
admin dashboard
This patch added a check to hide the Packages entry
Signed-off-by: baronbunny <its@baronbunny.cn>
Signed-off-by: baronbunny <its@baronbunny.cn>
At the moment a repository reference is needed for webhooks. With the
upcoming package PR we need to send webhooks without a repository
reference. For example a package is uploaded to an organization. In
theory this enables the usage of webhooks for future user actions.
This PR removes the repository id from `HookTask` and changes how the
hooks are processed (see `services/webhook/deliver.go`). In a follow up
PR I want to remove the usage of the `UniqueQueue´ and replace it with a
normal queue because there is no reason to be unique.
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
depends on #18871
Added some api integration tests to help testing of #18798.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Fixes#21379
The commits are capped by `setting.UI.FeedMaxCommitNum` so
`len(commits)` is not the correct number. So this PR adds a new
`TotalCommits` field.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Support OAuth2 applications created by admins on the admin panel, they
aren't owned by anybody.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Adds the settings pages to create OAuth2 apps also to the org settings
and allows to create apps for orgs.
Refactoring: the oauth2 related templates are shared for
instance-wide/org/user, and the backend code uses `OAuth2CommonHandlers`
to share code for instance-wide/org/user.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Close#20315 (fix the panic when parsing invalid input), Speed up #20231 (use ls-tree without size field)
Introduce ListEntriesRecursiveFast (ls-tree without size) and ListEntriesRecursiveWithSize (ls-tree with size)
This fixes error "unauthorized_client: invalid client secret" when
client includes secret in Authorization header rather than request body.
OAuth spec permits both.
Sanity validation that client id and client secret in request are
consistent with Authorization header.
Improve error descriptions. Error codes remain the same.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Adds GitHub-like pages to view watched repos and subscribed issues/PRs
This is my second try to fix this, but it is better than the first since
it doesn't uses a filter option which could be slow when accessing
`/issues` or `/pulls` and it shows both pulls and issues (the first try
is #17053).
Closes#16111
Replaces and closes#17053
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fixes#21282
As suggested by the [OAuth RFC](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749)
(quoted below), it's helpful to give more detail in the description
> error_description
OPTIONAL. Human-readable ASCII
[[USASCII](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#ref-USASCII)] text
providing **additional information, used to assist the client developer
in understanding the error that occurred.**
Values for the "error_description" parameter MUST NOT include characters
outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
Fixes#21184
Regression of #19552
Instead of using `GetBlobByPath` I use the already existing instances.
We need more information from #19530 if that error is still present.
If you are create a new new branch while viewing file or directory, you
get redirected to the root of the repo. With this PR, you keep your
current path instead of getting redirected to the repo root.
In #21088 I accidentally forgot to support multiple branches. It always
checks the default branch, no matter on which branch you are working on.
With this fix, it always shows the error from the current branch. Sorry
for that.
Add support for triggering webhook notifications on wiki changes.
This PR contains frontend and backend for webhook notifications on wiki actions (create a new page, rename a page, edit a page and delete a page). The frontend got a new checkbox under the Custom Event -> Repository Events section. There is only one checkbox for create/edit/rename/delete actions, because it makes no sense to separate it and others like releases or packages follow the same schema.
The actions itself are separated, so that different notifications will be executed (with the "action" field). All the webhook receivers implement the new interface method (Wiki) and the corresponding tests.
When implementing this, I encounter a little bug on editing a wiki page. Creating and editing a wiki page is technically the same action and will be handled by the ```updateWikiPage``` function. But the function need to know if it is a new wiki page or just a change. This distinction is done by the ```action``` parameter, but this will not be sent by the frontend (on form submit). This PR will fix this by adding the ```action``` parameter with the values ```_new``` or ```_edit```, which will be used by the ```updateWikiPage``` function.
I've done integration tests with matrix and gitea (http).
Fix#16457
Signed-off-by: Aaron Fischer <mail@aaron-fischer.net>
Jason Song
Lunny Xiao
Gusted
oliverpool
kolaente
Xinyu Zhou
Yarden Shoham
delvh
M Hickford
a1012112796
wxiaoguang
KN4CK3R
Raymond
6543
Neel
qwerty287
Lauris BH
Wim
JakobDev
Tyrone Yeh
luzpaz
Aaron F
