- Modify the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function in `api.go` to include a
`Delete` operation for the secret
- Modify the `DeleteOrgSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the organization
- Modify the `DeleteSecret` function in `action.go` to include a
`DeleteSecret` operation for the repository
- Modify the `v1_json.tmpl` template file to update the `operationId`
and `summary` for the `deleteSecret` operation in both the organization
and repository sections
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Just like `models/unittest`, the testing helper functions should be in a
separate package: `contexttest`
And complete the TODO:
> // TODO: move this function to other packages, because it depends on
"models" package
spec:
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/secrets?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-or-update-a-repository-secret
- Add a new route for creating or updating a secret value in a
repository
- Create a new file `routers/api/v1/repo/action.go` with the
implementation of the `CreateOrUpdateSecret` function
- Update the Swagger documentation for the `updateRepoSecret` operation
in the `v1_json.tmpl` template file
---------
Signed-off-by: Bo-Yi Wu <appleboy.tw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Cargo registry-auth feature requires config.json to have a property
auth-required set to true in order to send token to all registry
requests.
This is ok for git index because you can manually edit the config.json
file to add the auth-required, but when using sparse
(setting index url to
"sparse+https://git.example.com/api/packages/{owner}/cargo/"), the
config.json is dynamically rendered, and does not reflect changes to the
config.json file in the repo.
I see two approaches:
- Serve the real config.json file when fetching the config.json on the
cargo service.
- Automatically detect if the registry requires authorization. (This is
what I implemented in this PR).
What the PR does:
- When a cargo index repository is created, on the config.json, set
auth-required to wether or not the repository is private.
- When the cargo/config.json endpoint is called, set auth-required to
wether or not the request was authorized using an API token.
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>
Fixes: #26333.
Previously, this endpoint only updates the `StatusCheckContexts` field
when `EnableStatusCheck==true`, which makes it impossible to clear the
array otherwise.
This patch uses slice `nil`-ness to decide whether to update the list of
checks. The field is ignored when either the client explicitly passes in
a null, or just omits the field from the json ([which causes
`json.Unmarshal` to leave the struct field
unchanged](https://go.dev/play/p/Z2XHOILuB1Q)). I think this is a better
measure of intent than whether the `EnableStatusCheck` flag was set,
because it matches the semantics of other field types.
Also adds a test case. I noticed that [`testAPIEditBranchProtection`
only checks the branch
name](c1c83dbaec/tests/integration/api_branch_test.go (L68))
and no other fields, so I added some extra `GET` calls and specific
checks to make sure the fields are changing properly.
I added those checks the existing integration test; is that the right
place for it?
- 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>
Fixes#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
From Discord
https://discord.com/channels/322538954119184384/1069795723178160168/1136719889684500480
Artifact chunks merging is break on Windows.
```
Gitea Log:
2023/08/03 20:51:15 ...actions/artifacts.go:271:comfirmUploadArtifact() [E] Error merge chunks: parse content range error: input does not match format
```
Artifact uses wrong slash to parse saved chunks path.
Fix#24662.
Replace #24822 and #25708 (although it has been merged)
## Background
In the past, Gitea supported issue searching with a keyword and
conditions in a less efficient way. It worked by searching for issues
with the keyword and obtaining limited IDs (as it is heavy to get all)
on the indexer (bleve/elasticsearch/meilisearch), and then querying with
conditions on the database to find a subset of the found IDs. This is
why the results could be incomplete.
To solve this issue, we need to store all fields that could be used as
conditions in the indexer and support both keyword and additional
conditions when searching with the indexer.
## Major changes
- Redefine `IndexerData` to include all fields that could be used as
filter conditions.
- Refactor `Search(ctx context.Context, kw string, repoIDs []int64,
limit, start int, state string)` to `Search(ctx context.Context, options
*SearchOptions)`, so it supports more conditions now.
- Change the data type stored in `issueIndexerQueue`. Use
`IndexerMetadata` instead of `IndexerData` in case the data has been
updated while it is in the queue. This also reduces the storage size of
the queue.
- Enhance searching with Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch, make them
fully support `SearchOptions`. Also, update the data versions.
- Keep most logic of database indexer, but remove
`issues.SearchIssueIDsByKeyword` in `models` to avoid confusion where is
the entry point to search issues.
- Start a Meilisearch instance to test it in unit tests.
- Add unit tests with almost full coverage to test
Bleve/Elasticsearch/Meilisearch indexer.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Close#24544
Changes:
- Create `action_tasks_version` table to store the latest version of
each scope (global, org and repo).
- When a job with the status of `waiting` is created, the tasks version
of the scopes it belongs to will increase.
- When the status of a job already in the database is updated to
`waiting`, the tasks version of the scopes it belongs to will increase.
- On Gitea side, in `FeatchTask()`, will try to query the
`action_tasks_version` record of the scope of the runner that call
`FetchTask()`. If the record does not exist, will insert a row. Then,
Gitea will compare the version passed from runner to Gitea with the
version in database, if inconsistent, try pick task. Gitea always
returns the latest version from database to the runner.
Related:
- Protocol: https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-def/pulls/10
- Runner: https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/219
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
current actions artifacts implementation only support single file
artifact. To support multiple files uploading, it needs:
- save each file to each db record with same run-id, same artifact-name
and proper artifact-path
- need change artifact uploading url without artifact-id, multiple files
creates multiple artifact-ids
- support `path` in download-artifact action. artifact should download
to `{path}/{artifact-path}`.
- in repo action view, it provides zip download link in artifacts list
in summary page, no matter this artifact contains single or multiple
files.
Before: the concept "Content string" is used everywhere. It has some
problems:
1. Sometimes it means "base64 encoded content", sometimes it means "raw
binary content"
2. It doesn't work with large files, eg: uploading a 1G LFS file would
make Gitea process OOM
This PR does the refactoring: use "ContentReader" / "ContentBase64"
instead of "Content"
This PR is not breaking because the key in API JSON is still "content":
`` ContentBase64 string `json:"content"` ``
related #16865
This PR adds an accessibility check before mounting container blobs.
---------
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Follow #25229
At present, when the trigger event is `pull_request_target`, the `ref`
and `sha` of `ActionRun` are set according to the base branch of the
pull request. This makes it impossible for us to find the head branch of
the `ActionRun` directly. In this PR, the `ref` and `sha` will always be
set to the head branch and they will be changed to the base branch when
generating the task context.
A couple of notes:
* Future changes should refactor arguments into a struct
* This filtering only is supported by meilisearch right now
* Issue index number is bumped which will cause a re-index
Fixes#24723
Direct serving of content aka HTTP redirect is not mentioned in any of
the package registry specs but lots of official registries do that so it
should be supported by the usual clients.
Fix#25558
Extract from #22743
This PR added a repository's check when creating/deleting branches via
API. Mirror repository and archive repository cannot do that.
Resolve#24789
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
Before this, `DEFAULT_ACTIONS_URL` cound be set to any custom URLs like
`https://gitea.com` or `http://your-git-server,https://gitea.com`, and
the default value was `https://gitea.com`.
But now, `DEFAULT_ACTIONS_URL` supports only
`github`(`https://github.com`) or `self`(the root url of current Gitea
instance), and the default value is `github`.
If it has configured with a URL, an error log will be displayed and it
will fallback to `github`.
Actually, what we really want to do is always make it
`https://github.com`, however, this may not be acceptable for some
instances of internal use, so there's extra support for `self`, but no
more, even `https://gitea.com`.
Please note that `uses: https://xxx/yyy/zzz` always works and it does
exactly what it is supposed to do.
Although it's breaking, I belive it should be backported to `v1.20` due
to some security issues.
Follow-up on the runner side:
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/262
- https://gitea.com/gitea/act/pulls/70
This adds an API for uploading and Deleting Avatars for of Users, Repos
and Organisations. I'm not sure, if this should also be added to the
Admin API.
Resolves#25344
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Related #14180
Related #25233
Related #22639Close#19786
Related #12763
This PR will change all the branches retrieve method from reading git
data to read database to reduce git read operations.
- [x] Sync git branches information into database when push git data
- [x] Create a new table `Branch`, merge some columns of `DeletedBranch`
into `Branch` table and drop the table `DeletedBranch`.
- [x] Read `Branch` table when visit `code` -> `branch` page
- [x] Read `Branch` table when list branch names in `code` page dropdown
- [x] Read `Branch` table when list git ref compare page
- [x] Provide a button in admin page to manually sync all branches.
- [x] Sync branches if repository is not empty but database branches are
empty when visiting pages with branches list
- [x] Use `commit_time desc` as the default FindBranch order by to keep
consistent as before and deleted branches will be always at the end.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
In the process of doing a bit of automation via the API, we've
discovered a _small_ issue in the Swagger definition. We tried to create
a push mirror for a repository, but our generated client raised an
exception due to an unexpected status code.
When looking at this function:
3c7f5ed7b5/routers/api/v1/repo/mirror.go (L236-L240)
We see it defines `201 - Created` as response:
3c7f5ed7b5/routers/api/v1/repo/mirror.go (L260-L262)
But it actually returns `200 - OK`:
3c7f5ed7b5/routers/api/v1/repo/mirror.go (L373)
So I've just updated the Swagger definitions to match the code😀
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fix#25088
This PR adds the support for
[`pull_request_target`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target)
workflow trigger. `pull_request_target` is similar to `pull_request`,
but the workflow triggered by the `pull_request_target` event runs in
the context of the base branch of the pull request rather than the head
branch. Since the workflow from the base is considered trusted, it can
access the secrets and doesn't need approvals to run.
Bo-Yi Wu
wxiaoguang
KN4CK3R
js6pak
Chongyi Zheng
merlleu
Infinoid
Jason Song
puni9869
FuXiaoHei
JakobDev
caicandong
sillyguodong
delvh
Lunny Xiao
silverwind
Zettat123
techknowlogick
6543
Georg Dangl
Daniel Wolf
