Found issues during the process of invalidation of a multiline comment (link to #12582):
* Update a line in the middle of the comment
* Update/Delete the last line of the comment
No problem with:
* Deleting a line in the middle of the comment
* Update/Delete the first line of the comment
I added all these cases in the pull_review_test.go
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- I ran...
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12950
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Closes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/6093
This PR adds support for **multi-line review comments** on pull requests, allowing reviewers to select a range of lines in diffs instead of only a single line — similar to GitHub's implementation.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12582
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Checklist
Following the previous contribution that added admin-level management of user access tokens (particularly useful for bot/service accounts), this change exposes the created_at field in the API response when listing or retrieving access tokens.
This information is needed to implement token rotation policies for these users — knowing when a token was created allows administrators to identify and revoke stale tokens.
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [X] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [X] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [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.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12620): <!--number 12620 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZXhwb3NlIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbiBjcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlIGluIEFQSSByZXNwb25zZXM=-->expose access token creation date in API responses<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12620
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
### Problem
When a user clicks the merge button on a pull request and their quota is exceeded, the UI displays ( cf screenshot ):
> Network error SyntaxError: Unexpected token 'Q', "Quota exceeded." is not valid JSON
### Fix
Read the response body as text first with `resp.text()`, then attempt `JSON.parse()`. If parsing succeeds, use the existing `errorMessage` logic. If it fails, display the raw text directly in the error toast.
This is the same approach already used by Dropzone for attachment uploads, where the `error` event handler passes the response body directly to `showErrorToast`. ( cf screenshot )
### Tests for JavaScript changes
The function is not exported, I cannot create a unit test. Do you want me to export all the logic in an exported function ?
### 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12635
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
# Feature Request: Admin API route to manage access tokens for any user
## Problem
The existing API route to create access tokens (POST /api/v1/users/{username}/tokens) requires Basic authentication (username + password) via the reqBasicOrRevProxyAuth() middleware. This is by design: a token should not be created from another token.
However, this creates a blocker for environments where Basic authentication is disabled (ENABLE_BASIC_AUTHENTICATION = false), typically when authentication is delegated to an external SSO provider (e.g., OpenID Connect).
In such setups, bot/service accounts are provisioned by an external system that needs to:
Create a user via POST /api/v1/admin/users (works fine with an admin token)
Create an access token for that user (currently impossible without Basic auth or direct CLI/DB access)
The only workaround today is to SSH into the Forgejo server and run:
This is not suitable when the provisioning system has no direct access to the Forgejo host.
## Proposed solution
Add new admin-only API routes under the existing /api/v1/admin/users/{username} group to manage access tokens:
| Method | Route | Description |
|:-------- |:--------:| --------:|
| GET | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | List access tokens for a user|
|POST | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens | Create an access token for a user|
|DELETE | /api/v1/admin/users/{username}/tokens/{id} | Delete an access token for a user|
These routes would:
Require a site admin token (reqToken() + reqSiteAdmin()) — no Basic auth needed
Use the AccessTokenScopeCategoryAdmin token scope
Reuse the existing handler logic from user.CreateAccessToken / user.ListAccessTokens / user.DeleteAccessToken
Accept the same request/response payloads as the existing user-facing routes
### Why this belongs in the admin API
It follows the existing pattern: admins can already create users, repos, orgs, SSH keys, and emails for any user via the admin API
It does not weaken security: only site administrators can call it, and it requires a valid admin-scoped token
It fills a gap: the admin CLI command forgejo admin user generate-access-token already provides this capability, but only locally
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323): <!--number 12323 --><!--line 0 --><!--description ZmVhdChhcGkpOiBhZGQgYWRtaW4gcm91dGVzIHRvIG1hbmFnZSB1c2VyIGFjY2VzcyB0b2tlbnM=-->feat(api): add admin routes to manage user access tokens<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12323
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Fix: `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/tags/{sha}` returns empty verification for signed tags
### Problem
When an annotated tag is signed (GPG or SSH) but the underlying commit is **not** signed, the API endpoint `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/tags/{sha}` returns an empty `verification.signature` field.
This is because `ToAnnotatedTag` was calling `ToVerification(ctx, c)` with the **commit** object, which checks the commit's signature — not the tag's own signature. Since the commit is unsigned, the API returns `signature: ""` and `verified: false`.
This causes issues for tools that rely on the tag signature from the API to validate that a tag push event is from a trusted source.
### Fix
`ToAnnotatedTag` now checks if the tag has its own signature (`t.Signature != nil`). If so, it uses `ParseTagWithSignature` to verify the tag's signature and populates the `verification` field from the tag. Otherwise, it falls back to the commit signature (existing behavior for unsigned/lightweight tags).
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12351
Reviewed-by: limiting-factor <limiting-factor@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
