Adds support for `optional.Option[T]` to be used on an xorm schema struct to represent nullable fields. The `optional.None[T]()` value will be stored in the database as `NULL`.
```go
type OptionString struct {
ID int64 `xorm:"pk autoincr"`
StringField optional.Option[string]
}
```
Before this change, it is possible to represent a nullable field in two reasonable ways: , or as a `sql.Null[T]` (eg. `StringField sql.Null[string]`). The problems with these are:
- as a pointer (eg. `StringField *string`) -- but this introduces the risk of panics when `nil` values are dereferenced, and makes it difficult to use literals in structure creation (although `new()` in Go 1.26 would reduce this issue when Forgejo is upgraded to it)
- as a `sql.Null[T]` -- but this "leaks" references to the `database/sql` package for anything that interacts with Forgejo models, and it's API is awkward as nothing gates you into checking the `Valid` field before you access and use the `V` field
`optional.Option[T]` addresses these points and provides a single way to use an optional primitive type, with a safe check-before-access interface, which can be used consistently throughout model code and other application code. Figuring out the best way to handle this became a blocker to me for [adding foreign keys to nullable fields](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/385#issuecomment-10218316) in database models, which is what drove me to implement this solution.
## Notes: Filtering on `Option[T]` Fields
It is supported and functional to perform queries with xorm beans with non-None `Option` values. For example:
```go
cond := &OptionString{
StringField: optional.Some("hello"),
}
err := db.GetEngine(t.Context()).Find(&arr, cond)
```
will generate a database query `WHERE string_field = 'hello'`, and correctly filter the records.
It is **not** supported to perform queries with `None` values, for two reasons:
- xorm cannot distinguish between an explicit `&OptionString{ StringField: optional.None[string]() }`, and `&OptionString{}`. Both of them have the `StringField` field set to the zero-value of `Option[String]`.
- For this SQL query to be formatted correctly, it would require `WHERE string_field IS NOT NULL`, not `WHERE string_field = NULL`. This is not how xorm generated bean-based queries.
This is similar to the risk that exists with any other field querying on its zero-value with xorm. It's an unfortunate structural limitation of xorm, and can lead to developers believing database queries are performing filtering that they are not.
(perhaps we can mitigate this risk with semgrep or other automated tooling in the future)
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11553
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- For small modals fomantic tried to add a `scrolling` class using a function that was not implemented, this function is now stubbed.
- There's not really a need to conditionally change the behavior of scrolling or not, we can specify `overflow-y: auto` which is more than enough to take care of this. We do add some layout changes to ensure the modal is fully scrollable.
- Refactor to nested CSS.
- Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#10991
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11547
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
This PR is part of a series (#11311).
Adds support for reading and creating repo-secific access tokens through the API via the `GET /users/{username}/tokens`, `POST /users/{username}/tokens`, and `DELETE /users/{username}/tokens/{id}` APIs.
Validation rules are included to [restrict repo-specific access tokens to specific scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504): <!--number 11504 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVhZCwgY3JlYXRlLCAmIGRlbGV0ZSByZXBvLXNwZWNpZmljIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnMgdmlhIEFQSQ==-->read, create, & delete repo-specific access tokens via API<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11504
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Forgejo's OCI container registry did not enable basic authentication for the top-level endpoint `/v2`. Furthermore, it did not include the `WWW-Authenticate` header when returning the status code 401 as mandated by [RFC 7235](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7235#section-3.1), "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", section 3.1. Those deficiencies made it impossible for Apple's [container](https://github.com/apple/container) to log into Forgejo OCI container registry. This has been rectified.
The problem did not occur with most other tools because they do not include credentials when sending the initial request to `/v2`. Forgejo's reply then included `WWW-Authenticate` as expected.
Enabling basic authentication for `/v2` has the side effect that Apple's container uses username and password for all successive requests and not the bearer token. If that is a problem, it's up to Apple to change container's behaviour.
If invalid credentials are passed to `container registry login`, then container enters an infinite loop. The same happens with quay.io, but not ghcr.io (returns 403) or docker.io (returns 401 but _without_ `WWW-Authenticate`). As this is invalid behaviour on container's side, it's up to Apple to change container. Docker and Podman handle it correctly.
Login and pushing have been tested manually with Docker 29.1.3, Podman 5.7.1, and Apple's container 0.9.0.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11297.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11393
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Remove recipients that are not active (e.g. done by moderation or
organizational reasons) and those that have the permi ssion to read
releases on that repository.
It was sufficiently checked for the repostiory case, but for user/org
project it was not checked and you could change the state of any
project by there mere knowledge of a ID.
The API already checked the permission sufficiently if auto merge could
be cancelled by the doer. The web route did not. Consolidate this check
in the function that lives in the services directory.
It was possible to hijack attachments during update and create functions
to another owner as permissions to check they weren't already attached
to another resource and wasn't checked if it belonged to the repository
that was being operated on.
There are two ways to use a OAuth2 token:
Via the Authorization header as a Bearer token.
Via the Authorization header as a Basic login.
For the former the scope was correctly passed through, for the latter it
was not and would mean no scope was checked if you used the token via
this way.
We do not know for sure, but it is quite likely someone assumed implicit
fallthrough. This meant that if someone used S256 for PKCE, it simply
did not verify the code challenge and always accepted it.
PKCE only started working recently as it was broken for a long time
already, forgejo/forgejo!8678
As discussed here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/444 the container v2 API logic does need some refactoring for better maintainability.
This is a proposition on how to achieve that. My goal was to be able to write unit tests for functions like processImageManifest() which are currently only tested indirectly by TestPackageContainer() in tests/integration/api_packages_container_test.go.
A first unit test was implemented that targets ProcessManifest(). I think that test also shows what steps are needed to successfully execute the ProcessManifest() function and hopefully helps understanding that code better.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11432
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: patdyn <patdyn@noreply.codeberg.org>
