cdd35458a94873115305f43a592d2291b258c711
100
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
cdd35458a9 |
feat: enable auth to git LFS via authorized integrations (#12725)
The goal is to enable access to Git LFS resources with Authorized Integrations JWTs. Blocker that needed to be resolved is that adding the `AuthorizedIntegration` auth method would conflict with the LFS tokens, which are handed out during git ssh clones to allow access to LFS resources -- `AuthorizedIntegration` would mark these as `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential`, and therefore the requests would 401 before they got to the LFS-specific token validation routines. The fix is to move LFS token authentication into an authentication group so that it could be resolved at the same time as the authorized integration, rather than doing it inside the LFS server routines. Refactors for LFS tokens are covered by refreshed test automation. Authorized integrations LFS Access has been manually tested, and will be further covered in an end-to-end integration test (https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1954). ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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... - [ ] `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/12725 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
81a5b0d840 |
fix: remove default 'REVERSE_PROXY_TRUSTED_PROXIES = *' from docker config (#12782)
Forgejo's docker containers had `REVERSE_PROXY_TRUSTED_PROXIES = *` configured in them by default. In the event that the Forgejo sysadmin set the docker environment variable `FORGEJO__service__ENABLE_REVERSE_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION` to the value `true`, *and* an unauthorized user could access Forgejo without traversing a reverse proxy performing authentication, then an unauthorized user could use the `X-WebAuth-User` HTTP header to impersonate any user. While this is an unlikely set of configuration settings, it seems more prudent for the Forgejo to require a sysadmin to choose an appropriate value for `REVERSE_PROXY_TRUSTED_PROXIES`. Even in a containerized environment, this value can be used safely and set to reasonable values if firewall-level networking is in use (eg. using [Docker with iptables](https://docs.docker.com/engine/network/firewall-iptables/)), which is the common default for docker systems in 2026. The intent of this PR is to change the default in Forgejo 16, and to mark it as a breaking change for highlighting in the release notes. The risk of misconfiguration is not high enough to backport this breaking change to earlier Forgejo releases. If a sysadmin wants to use the previous configuration, they can set the environment variable `FORGEJO__service__REVERSE_PROXY_TRUSTED_PROXIES` to the value `*`, but it would be recommended that they revise the setting to a narrower set of trusted IPs that they expect reverse proxy connections from. See the [`[security]`](https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/admin/config-cheat-sheet/#security-security) config block for more information. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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). ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12782 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
b18d28b3b5 |
fix: debian package cleanup failure due to xorm connection corruption (#12764)
Fixes #12645. Detailed analysis in [this comment](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/12645#issuecomment-15939122). New test case is verified to hit the bug -- the previous case just narrowly missed the problem because it ended up with an empty repository index. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12764 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
dfdd9b2e2a |
fix: check quota in LFS uploads against the repository owner, not operating user (#12755)
Follow-up to the previously closed #12437; verifies git LFS quotas are checked against the repository owner not the current actor. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12755): <!--number 12755 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Y2hlY2sgcXVvdGEgaW4gTEZTIHVwbG9hZHMgYWdhaW5zdCB0aGUgcmVwb3NpdG9yeSBvd25lciwgbm90IG9wZXJhdGluZyB1c2Vy-->check quota in LFS uploads against the repository owner, not operating user<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12755 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
c8d24ff06a |
feat: enable auth to git HTTP via authorized integrations (#12715)
Allow authentication to git HTTP & git LFS via an authorized integration. This is the first step in getting rid of OAuth, basic auth, etc.'s usage of [`isGitRawOrAttachPath(req)`](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/26f18a94ee80a5fd8972833b95b1df995ee92fc4/services/auth/method/basic.go#L38-L40). I don't want to follow that pattern of HTTP route matching in the authentication method, so I've broken the HTTP routes related to git functionality out to using a separate authentication middleware in the top-level `web.Routes` handler. As this approach is expanded to the other endpoints in order to add support to them for authorized integrations, eventually it will be possible to remove this URL matching completely and just rely on middleware installation. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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/12715 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6d522ecba0 |
feat: add "Forgejo Actions (Local)" authorized integration UI (#12672)
Extracts the separate concepts for different UIs out of the original implementation, and then adds the new UI for Forgejo Actions (Local). Manual end-to-end testing was performed on all variations of the "workflow file", "git reference", and "event" filter options as well. They're covered by test automation, but not in an end-to-end manner. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 ### Tests for JavaScript changes - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [x] 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. - Documentation is next up after this change is complete. ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12672 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6244e333b1 |
fix: improve visibility of mismatched repository & package visibility (#12627)
A concern has been raised to the security team that Forgejo users can be confused by the visibility of packages in Forgejo being linked to the owner of the package, and not the repository that a package may be linked to. While future feature requests may change how package visibility works, an immediately actionable response is to ensure that this is clearer to end-users. This PR adds a warning on the Settings -> Unit page of a private repository, and the Packages tab of a private repository, if the owner of the repository is public. It also renames the unit "Enable repository package registry" to "Enable package linking", to better reflect the fact that enabling packages on a repository does not create some repository-level registry. **Before**:  **After**:  **On repository's Packages tab**:  ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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). ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12627 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
29eddd311b |
chore: upgrade to https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm v1.4.0 (#12639)
Upgrade Forgejo to our forked [xorm v1.4.0](https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/compare/v1.3.9-forgejo.12...v1.4.0), which is now named `code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm` to reflect the current expectation that it is a permanent fork. A small number of API changes were made recently in https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/issues/120 which are accounted for in this PR, in addition to the module rename. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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). ### 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/12639 Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
cd5a1173d5 |
feat: web UI to delete authorized integration (#12632)
Adds a "Delete" option to the authorized integration list. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 ### 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. - [x] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12632 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
8d50e7b25e |
feat: create new authorized integration in web UI (#12613)
Extends work completed in #12601 to enable creating new authorized integrations in the web UI. This UI is identical to the edit experience, except: "Audience" is only presented once the object is saved, "Save authorized integration is changed to "Create authorized integration", and performing the create redirects to the completed object to access the audience rather than redirecting the list page. A drop-down menu is used for the "UI" of the new authorized integration, even though only the generic "write your own rule" UI is currently implemented. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 ### Tests for JavaScript changes - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [x] 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)). - e2e tests here are for complete experience, but aren't for "JavaScript changes" as noted here. ### 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. - Documentation coming soon. ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12613 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
cf087a2f12 |
feat: ability to edit authorized integration in web UI (#12601)
Extends the UI introduced in #12558 to have edit capabilities. (not in scope: "Add" for a new Authorized Integration will be the next update to this UI; `create-authorized-integration` CLI is still the only way to create a new record) This PR includes a few refactoring steps. The goal of these steps is to have `services/auth` be a single entrypoint for validating, inserting, or updating an authorized integration. Some logic is moved out of `services/authz` because it is not authorization related, and some is moved out of `services/auth/method` to allow it to be reused during validation without creating a cyclical module dependency. This PR also adds comprehensive validation to the more complex fields in the authorized integration, such as the issuer and claim rules. This validation applies to the `forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration` CLI as well. The visible UI is the same as #12558, but with a "Save" button, and the ability to display errors:  ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 ### Tests for JavaScript changes - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [x] 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. - Documentation is on my TODO list and will be completed before release. ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12601 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
c1000624c6 | feat: view authorized integration (generic) | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
2a0df7474a | chore: fix unclear boolean predicate retval in AssertElementPredicate | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
ba3619d1df | feat(ui): list authorized integrations | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
2327b3b888 | feat: add 'ui' field to authorized_integration table | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6e5dbfa169 |
fix: handle boolean workflow inputs correctly before jobparser evaluates with them (#12539)
Fixes https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-actions-feature-requests/issues/112. Currently boolean `workflow_dispatch` values are being passed as strings during Forgejo's job parsing, causing both true & false to have the same behaviour when evaluated in a condition like this: ``` on: workflow_dispatch: inputs: win32: type: boolean jobs: job1: strategy: matrix: runner: ${{ fromJSON(inputs.win32 == 'true' && '["win32", "win64"]' || '["win64"]') }} steps: # ... ``` ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12539 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
|
32b8d732b8 |
2026-05-12 security patches (#12493)
- fix: prevent git write to wiki repo from unauthorized user via git HTTP - fix: prevent LFS authorization token from being used for read/write access after user's access is restricted from Forgejo - fix: prevent scoped API access (OAuth tokens, Access tokens) from accessing resources beyond their permitted scope via non-API endpoints (e.g. /user/repo/raw/...) - fix: implementing missing OAuth validation checks, improve protections against race conditions - fix: prevent OAuth redirect URI spoofing via non-ascii case collision - fix: strengthen Actions Artifact V4 signature algorithm against spoofing attacks <!--start release-notes-assistant--> ## Release notes <!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo--> - Security bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12493): <!--number 12493 --><!--line 0 --><!--description MjAyNi0wNS0xMiBzZWN1cml0eSBwYXRjaGVz-->2026-05-12 security patches<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Co-authored-by: Derzsi Dániel <daniel@tohka.us> Co-authored-by: jvoisin <julien.voisin@dustri.org> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12493 |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
e5eb5f8e63 |
feat: allow Authorized Integrations to have multiple values for a claim match (#12482)
Adds new Authorized Integration claim comparison rules for "in a list" and "in a list of globs", which would be required to permit multiple Forgejo Action events to match a JWT (per [design work](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-14510514), [comment](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-14512185)). ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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/12482 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandGusted
|
0cdbef74f0 |
chore: PGP sign .well-known/security.txt [skip ci] (#12502)
Sign the distributed version of `.well-known/security.txt`, just like https://forgejo.org/.well-known/security.txt is signed. ``` $ gpg --verify ./security.txt gpg: Signature made Sat 09 May 2026 05:59:29 PM MDT gpg: using EDDSA key 1B638BDF10969D627926B8D9F585D0F99E1FB56F gpg: Good signature from "Forgejo Security <security@forgejo.org>" [unknown] Primary key fingerprint: 1B63 8BDF 1096 9D62 7926 B8D9 F585 D0F9 9E1F B56F ``` In the future this signature will have to be updated before the key expires; but as the expiry is already documented in the file this isn't significantly different than the current state. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12502 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9a5d9397a4 |
chore: update flake.lock; add gnupg as dependency (#12497)
Add `gnupg` as part of the Nix-based development environment, which is a dependency for a small number of integration tests like `TestInstanceSigning`. Bumps `flake.lock` from its current 2025-11-12 to current 2026-05-05 pin, bringing updated tools referenced in `shell.nix`.
```
$ nix flake update
• Updated input 'nixpkgs':
'github:nixos/nixpkgs/c5ae371f1a6a7fd27823bc500d9390b38c05fa55?narHash=sha256-4PqRErxfe%2B2toFJFgcRKZ0UI9NSIOJa%2B7RXVtBhy4KE%3D' (2025-11-12)
→ 'github:nixos/nixpkgs/549bd84d6279f9852cae6225e372cc67fb91a4c1?narHash=sha256-hGdgeU2Nk87RAuZyYjyDjFL6LK7dAZN5RE9%2BhrDTkDU%3D' (2026-05-05)
```
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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).
### 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/12497
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandGusted
|
1cdef7d39f |
chore: upgrade xorm to v1.3.9-forgejo.12 (#12430)
Upgrading to bring https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/106 into Forgejo. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12430 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMichael Kriese
|
0af17c5f8a |
chore(renovate): run end-to-end tests on runner updates (#12423)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12423 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
c1ac671b55 |
feat: reusable workflow outer job is skipped if 'if:' block skips workflow (#12412)
Follow-up to https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1509 -- improves the UX in Forgejo when a reusable workflow is skipped, marking the workflow as skipped rather than succeeded. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 - [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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12412 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
525a377c24 |
feat: add name & description columns to authorized integration DB table (#12413)
User interfaces for authorized integrations will benefit from having a name field, to allow a list of authorized integrations to have an identifiable user-entered label. I've also added a "description" column which is a `LONGTEXT` field. My thought for this field is that if I were creating authorized integrations, I'd like to be able to write down where they're used, what they're used for, and how the remote system is configured. For example, if it was an authorized integration to allow AWS -> Forgejo integration, the AWS side can be complicated -- IAM roles which are assumed, resources like EC2 instances or Lambdas that can access the roles -- and this would provide a natural place to make some notes to help me remember how the remote is configured. I expect to represent this as a `<textarea>` in the Authorized Integration, optional, possibly markdown-formatted to allow links & bullet-points. Manually tested migration with PG backend, and manually tested creation of authorized integrations with the CLI updates. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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/12413 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
e89312de9b |
ci: fix merge conflict in test between #12355 & #12364 (#12401)
Both #12355 and #12364 passed CIs individually, but when combined a new test added in #12364 was broken by the change in #12355. Fixes the authorized integration test to use the new immutable subject format. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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/12401 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9b88e77c19 |
feat: expose immutable identifiers in Forgejo Actions JWTs (#12355)
Protect OIDC tokens generated by Forgejo Actions from threats arising when users or repositories are renamed or deleted, freeing their names up for reuse by another user. In this threat environment, relying on the name of users and repositories in validating JWT claims is unsafe because they can change. Adds three new claims to Actions' OIDC tokens: - `actor_id` -- the immutable identifier of the actor who triggered an Action run - `repository_id` -- the immutable identifier of the repository on which the Action is running - `repository_owner_id` -- the immutable identifier of the owner of the repository on which the Action is running Repositories will change their subject (`sub`) OIDC claims to include these immutable identifiers. Existing repositories will not change, in order to maintain compatibility with existing JWT usage. The new format will be applied to new repositories, or can be applied by disabling and enabling the Actions unit. The new format embeds the identifiers: - **Existing repos:** `repo:my-org/my-repo:ref:refs/heads/main` - **New repos:** `repo:my-org-123456/my-repo-456789:ref:refs/heads/main` Fixes #12244. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 - [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - New fields will be added to documentation soon. - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12355 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
7fc236c589 |
feat: allow Forgejo Actions to be used an Authorized Integration in-memory with internal issuer (#12364)
Allow JWTs that are generated by Forgejo Actions to be validated within Forgejo in-memory. Without any special support for this internal access situation, these problems would occur: 1. Forgejo would need to make an HTTP request to itself to get the valid public key for the JWT, in order to validate its signature. This is a waste of resources, and introduces a self-DoS risk. 2. Forgejo would need to be available via TLS in order for Actions to make service calls to Forgejo with that JWT, due to the TLS requirement for public key fetching. This would be a blocker for writing end-to-end tests for Forgejo, but also would affect users who do not host Forgejo with TLS. 3. Authorized Integrations would need to be saved with the `issuer` URL of Forgejo. If Forgejo's own `setting.AppURL` changed, all the persisted records in the database would become incorrect. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 - [ ] 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/12364 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
065a3a23f4 |
chore: extend length of integration test's logUnexpectedResponse (#12348)
I've observed intermittent failures in [`TestAPIAuthWithAuthorizedIntegration`](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/156485/jobs/8/attempt/1#jobstep-5-1950): ``` auth_authorized_integration_test.go:70: Error Trace: /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/integration_test.go:657 /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/auth_authorized_integration_test.go:70 /workspace/forgejo/forgejo/tests/integration/auth_authorized_integration_test.go:117 Error: Not equal: expected: 200 actual : 401 Test: TestAPIAuthWithAuthorizedIntegration/authorization_reducer/specific_repo_access_token Messages: Request: GET /api/v1/repos/user2/repo1/compare/master...master auth_authorized_integration_test.go:70: Response length: 1801 ``` I *suspect* that the cause is time-related errors in the Authorized Integration JWT, but I can't validate this because I can't reproduce the issue in local testing, and the response isn't displayed, and is just "Response length: 1801". This PR increases the size of responses that the integration tests' `logUnexpectedResponse` will output. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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/12348 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
bc7c8e3c84 |
fix: markdown rendering panic when code blocks do not have languages (#12325)
When attempting to render a markdown code block that does not have a language set in it, Forgejo will fail to render and log an error: ``` 2026/04/29 08:47:47 ...markdown/markdown.go:162:func1() [W] Unable to render markdown due to panic in goldmark: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference ``` This is a regression introduced by #12056. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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. - pre-release regression Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12325 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
be3fe4ff60 |
feat: allow Authorized Integrations to authenticate to Forgejo's package registries (#12310)
Enables and tests the usage of Authorized Integrations to access the package registries. Specific testing includes: - Container registry -- automated testing and manual testing - Generic registry, w/ detailed authorization tests -- automated testing - Conan registry -- automated testing (uses an "authenticate" endpoint that required updates) - npm registry -- manual testing with a Forgejo Action publishing packages For the container & conan registeries, where the client uses an authentication endpoint to request a temporary access token, the expiry of the temporary access token is restricted to the expiry of the authorized integration's JWT for the authorized integration in order to prevent an escalation of privileges. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12310 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniakand0ko
|
733a390ecd |
fix: verify PR author has write access to head to support allow maintainers edit (#12292)
When a pull request is opened, the author is able to mark that pull request to "Allow edits from maintainers", which grants the maintainers of the pull request's repo access to edit the pull request branch contents. It is possible to create a pull request where the pull request author does not have the ability to edit the pull request branch. Due to a missing security check for this case, maintainers of the pull request repo would be granted the ability to edit the pull request branch, even if the author of the pull request did not have that ability. By exploiting this missing security check, a user can edit any branch in a repository if they're able to fork that repository. The issue is being fixed by restricting the scope of "Allow edits from maintainers" to only grant that access if the pull request author also had access to edit the branch. Thanks to Arvin Shivram of Brutecat Security for discovering and responsibly disclosing the vulnerability. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12292 Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
70f7260e66 |
feat: add CLI command 'admin user create-authorized-integration' (#12299)
Allows the creation of an authorized integration as a Forgejo administrator, either for development testing or to support server-automation. Clipping out the CLI config options, looks like:
```
NAME:
forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration - Create an authorized integration for a specific user
USAGE:
forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration [options]
OPTIONS:
--username string, -u string Username
--issuer string JWT issuer ('iss' claim), example: https://forgejo.example.org/api/actions
--claim-eq string=string [ --claim-eq string=string ] Zero-or-more claim equality checks, formatted as claim=value, example: "actor=someuser"
--claim-glob string=string [ --claim-glob string=string ] Zero-or-more claim glob checks, formatted as claim=value, example: "sub=repo:forgejo/*:pull_request"
--scope string [ --scope string ] One-or-more scopes to apply to access token, examples: "all", "read:issue", "write:repository" (default: "all")
--repo string [ --repo string ] Zero-or-more specific repositories that can be accessed, or "all" to allow access to all repositories, example: "owner1/repo1" (default: "all")
```
As an example, this will create an authorized integration that will permit Codeberg's Forgejo Actions to generate trusted JWTs that can access the local user `mfenniak`:
```bash
$ ./forgejo admin user create-authorized-integration \
--username mfenniak \
--issuer https://codeberg.org/api/actions \
--claim-eq sub=repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request \
--scope read:user
{
"message": "Authorized integration was successfully created.",
"issuer": "https://codeberg.org/api/actions",
"audience": "u:1:c97d83bc-fa4e-4db3-b898-414cd5b6ce33",
"claim_rules": [
{
"description": "\"sub\" = \"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request\"",
"claim": "sub",
"compare": "eq",
"value": "repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"
}
]
}
```
The output is a JSON document to aid in use in automation. The `audience` field is the audience generated by Forgejo that must be used by the remote to generate the JWT. Continuing this example to the client-side, a matching Forgejo Action like this in the `mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo` repo, for a `pull_request` event, then it will be able to access the Forgejo server that the authorized integration was created on like this:
```yaml
on:
pull_request:
enable-openid-connect: true
jobs:
job1:
runs-on: docker
steps:
- name: Fetch JWT
id: jwt
run: |
set -eux -o pipefail
set +x
jwt=$(curl --fail \
-H "Authorization: bearer $ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_TOKEN" "$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL&audience=u:1:c97d83bc-fa4e-4db3-b898-414cd5b6ce33" \
| jq -r ".value")
echo "::add-mask::$jwt"
set -x
echo "jwt=$jwt" >> $FORGEJO_OUTPUT
- name: API call to Forgejo
run: |
curl \
-v --fail \
-H "Authorization: bearer ${{ steps.jwt.outputs.jwt }}" \
"https://example.org/api/v1/user" | jq
```
CLI command is tested manually. Supporting functions have associated unit tests.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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
- 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.
- CLI update should be automatic in docs -- more detailed Authorized Integration documentation is on my project plan.
### 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12299
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
37412e6a00 |
feat: cache OIDC metadata & JWKS when read by authorized integration (#12275)
Enhances authorized integrations (#12261) with a cache of the remote OpenID Connect descriptor file and JSON Web Key Set (JWKS), improving runtime performance and reducing intermittent reliability risks. By default a 10 minute cache is used, configurable through `[authorized_integration].CACHE_TTL`. To mock the cache for testing, mockery code generation is added, and a previous manually generated mock for `AuthorizationReducer` was replaced with the code generation. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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. - [ ] 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. - Authorized integrations are not yet exposed to end-users. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12275 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
900306e65a |
feat: add repo-specific & public-only authz reducers to authorized integrations (#12267)
Built on #12266; one commit added. Adds the ability to reduce the authorization scope of an authorized integration to public-only resources and repo-specific resources. Backend only -- no frontend created yet. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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/12267 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
c9d8682f90 |
test: add API integration testing for authorized integration authentication (#12266)
Built on #12261; one commit added. Adds an integration test verifying that access to the API can be authenticated by an authorized integration. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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/12266 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
48218c654b |
feat: authorized integrations DB models and authentication implementation (#12261)
Authorized Integrations is a new feature to allow users to define external systems which can generate JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) that Forgejo will trust in order to perform API access on behalf of that user. This is an authentication mechanism that requires zero preconfiguration of shared secrets, and instead establishes trust through short-lived secrets (JWTs) that are signed by the issuer, signatures are validated by comparison with published public keys, and a public-keys retrieved through well-known HTTP endpoints secured with TLS verification. The primary goal of Authorized Integrations is to support a mechanism for Forgejo Actions to receive elevated, but controlled, additional access to Forgejo. More details as to what the end result will look like are available in the [design proposal](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004) on #3571. This PR adds the core database storage and authentication verification for Authorized Integrations, with these capabilities: - An Authorized Integration is resolved by a unique key of an "issuer" and an "audience". The value of "issuer" is defined by the remote integration, and the value of "audience" will incorporate a unique identifier generated by Forgejo. - Example issuer: `https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com/` is the issuer for GitHub JWTs - Example audience: `https://forgejo.example.org/-/mfenniak/authorized-integration/6cc55ba0` is the expected format for a random audience field that Forgejo will generate. - JWTs can contain any number of claims, which are represented as a JSON object; Forgejo can validate these with a flexible policy. - eg. a claim may be `{"sub": "repo:coolguy/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` indicating that an OIDC token was received from an Actions execution in a specific repo on a specific event. - Authorized Integrations support a `ClaimRules` system which allows claim equal, glob, and nested object inspection. - `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"eq","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` -- would validate that `sub` exactly equals the specific value - `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"glob","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:*"}` -- would validate that `sub` matches the given string prefix but allow any event - When a JWT is received on an incoming API call, Forgejo retrieves the Authorized Integration from the DB (if present), validates the token signature against a remote JWKS, validates the claims, and grants API access as the user with a permission scope defined on the Authorized Integration. In addition to the unit testing provided here, this PR has been manually integration tested against three JWT issuing systems: Forgejo Actions, GitHub Actions, and AWS STS GetWebIdentityToken. Careful consideration has been made of these security concerns: - SSRF attacks against Forgejo are prevented by: - having a blocklist on remote HTTP validation requests which prevent access to internal network resources, - ensuring that authorized integrations are created by users with matching issuers, before attempting to validate tokens - Resource utilization attacks against Forgejo are reduced by limiting the possible size of external metadata requests; when fetching `/.well-known/openid-configuration` and `jkws_uri`'s from remote, untrusted servers, a maximum response size of 16 kB is enforced - Only well-known secure assymmetric JWT signing algorithms are supported -- in particular, the sketchy `none` JWT algorithm isn't supported. - JWT validation is covered by extensive unit tests, covering validation of all JWT timestamps, validation of the issuers, validation of the issuer's documented supported signing algorithms. This PR serves as a core, and many enhancements are required for this to be a usable system for users. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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... - [ ] `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. - Documentation updates for new config entries will be authored. - [ ] 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. - Marking not visible as there's no mechanism to interact with this backend yet. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12261 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
b17ed16f31 |
fix: allow viewing Actions run triggered by deleted user (#12271)
Fixes #9371. Manually reproduced and tested by setting `action_run.triggering_user_id` to a non-existent user ID. Manually tested that runs can be cancelled in this state as well. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 - [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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12271 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
ef5479af71 |
refactor: split "basic" and "oauth2" authentication impl into smaller single-purpose components (#12236)
Forgejo's `basic` and `oauth2` authentication methods perform five distinct types of authentication:
- Username and password authentication
- Personal access tokens
- OAuth2 access tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ forgejo.token }}` -- task-based static tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ env.ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN }}` JWT, which is the authentication method used for `upload-artifact` (mirroring GitHub's implementation)
`basic` and `oauth2` both supported almost all of these methods, resulting in quite a bit of code duplication between them. This PR splits personal access tokens into `access_token.go`, Action's task-based tokens into `action_task_token.go`, and Action's JWT tokens into `action_runtime_token.go`.
**Note:** There is one peculiar side-effect that is worth discussing. Previously, `Authorization: Basic ...` was handled by one complex code path in basic.go, and `Authorization: Bearer ...` was handled by another in oauth2.go, and if authorization failed and a 401 was returned, a single error message would be returned to the user. Now, as multiple authorization methods may look at `Authorization: Basic ...` and provide their own reason why authorization didn't work, a 401 response has multiple reasons for a lack of authorization listed:
```
401 Unauthorized
...
failure to authenticate with oauth2 access token: not a JWT
Basic authorization is not allowed while having security keys enrolled
access token does not exist [sha: notpassword]
task with token "notpassword": resource does not exist
```
A couple tests have been adapted to check that the result contains their expected response, rather than is equal-to or prefixed-with their expected result. This is caused by the "auth group" joining together any "invalid credentials" errors, and, to a certain extent it is useful to understand why the authorization request failed. But it's a bit obscure as well.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on integration testing for regression checks.
- 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/12236
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9f7533c1f1 |
refactor: clarify four different outputs that authentication methods provide (#12231)
#12202 began a refactor of Forgejo's authentication implementations by providing structured data on an authentication success. However, error cases were maintained as-is in that refactor, leaving a complex situation: what does returning an error from an authentication method mean?; does it mean that the authentication failed, or that a server error occurred? Can another authentication still be tried? This PR changes authentication methods so that they can return one of four things: - `AuthenticationSuccess` with an authentication result. - `AuthenticationNotAttempted` which indicates that no credentials relevant for this authentication method were presented. If every method returned `AuthenticationNotAttempted`, then you would have an unauthenticated access. - `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential` which indicates that credentials were present and failed validation -- a situation indicating a `401 Unauthorized`. - `AuthenticationError` which indicates that an internal server error occurred and failed authentication -- indicating a `500 Internal Server Error`. This paves the way for one more refactor coming next: `basic.go` and `oauth2.go` perform 3-4 different authentications each (access tokens, oauth JWTs, actions tokens, actions JWTs, and username/password). With the capability to return these more precise responses, these authentication methods can be split up into separate logic that isn't intertwined together. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - Relying on existing test suite, with changes for any compile errors -- the next refactor will simplify the auth methods so that they can be unit tested easily. - 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/12231 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
1ddd5faa5c |
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface. Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004). ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing. - 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/12202 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
2ed98ac848 |
fix: resolve outer workflow call to success, not failure, on inner job skip (#12224)
If one or more of a workflow expansion's inner jobs are status "skipped", consider that as a success, rather than a failure. Fixes https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/issues/1490. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 - [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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12224 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
c7b5026f59 |
chore: bump xorm to v1.3.9-forgejo.11 (#12153)
Should fix intermittent test failures in Forgejo's integration test suite, in [`TestPackageDebianConcurrent`](https://codeberg.org/forgejo-integration/forgejo/actions/runs/16661/jobs/3/attempt/1#jobstep-5-1271), where this error is occurring. Will be backported to v15 as the same test is present there, to keep the LTS tests healthy. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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). ### 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/12153 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
a4b575fd75 |
fix: make /repos/search?uid=-2 return zero results, no repos with that owner (#12144)
API calls to `.../api/v1/repos/search?uid=-2&archived=false` currently do not apply the filter `uid` because of the negative value. This can occur when APIs are interacting with `${{ forgejo.token }}` and believe they're operating as the Forgejo Actions user, which has UID -2.
In combination with the security checks that occur in the `/repos/search` API to validate that repositories accessed are visible to the user, this can result in 500 error responses when a more correct expectation would be to receive no repositories:
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/da8898822c528a245a4cbe3e0ca02928262a4d5e/routers/api/v1/repo/repo.go#L237-L242
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] 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.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12144
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
2c0c48f50e |
fix: continued API response processing after error in /repos/search API (#12143)
Prevent continued execution of some APIs with error responses that didn't correctly interrupt execution, resulting in bizarre outputs and possibly leaking secure data:
```
> GET /api/v1/repos/search?uid=-2&archived=false HTTP/2
> Host: example.org
> user-agent: curl/7.88.1
> accept: */*
> authorization: bearer ***
>
< HTTP/2 500
< server: nginx
< date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:20:09 GMT
< content-type: application/json;charset=utf-8
< cache-control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate, no-transform
< x-content-type-options: nosniff
< x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
<
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"message":"","url":"https://example.org/api/swagger"}
{"ok":true,"data":[{"id":68,"owner":{"id":1,"login":"mfenniak", ...
```
As these errors only occur on situations that shouldn't be reproducible (minus software bugs), test automation isn't practical.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `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/12143
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
8cb776dcac |
chore: fix TestMirrorPull on older git (2.34.1) installation (#12134)
`TestMirrorPull` is currently failing when run on git 2.34.1 in the `testing-integration.yml` workflow: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-integration/forgejo/actions/runs/16661/jobs/1/attempt/1#jobstep-5-2539 Began to fail after #11909 when additional checks on pull mirror configuration was added. This PR addresses the issue and has been manually tested against the same git version: ``` $ git --version git version 2.34.1 $ make test-sqlite#TestMirrorPull 2>&1 ... === TestMirrorPull/migrate_from_repo_config_credentials (tests/integration/mirror_pull_test.go:238) PASS ``` ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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). ### 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/12134 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
179fbdb04e |
fix: when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to viewed base & head, not just viewed head (#12107)
While developing tests for #12092, I came across a case where making a comment on a single-commit doesn't include the correct diff for the comment. This is because code comment placement occurs between the PR's base and the commit being viewed, but, that diff could be different from the commit's parent to the commit, which is what is being viewed on a single-commit diff. Similar to #12055, this PR changes code comments to be more precise in their diff generation by providing the backend with both the base commit (`before_commit_id`) and head commit (`after_commit_id`) currently being viewed. As a result, the diffs attached to comments should exactly match the diffs being viewed by the user when the comment was placed. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12107 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
a797a71dea |
fix: display code comments on removed lines-of-code to correct locations in PR view (#12092)
With the completion of #12015, when a comment is left on a changed line in a pull request, we track the comment against the line of code with `git blame` and then identify where it currently is in any diff with `git blame --reverse`. However, this strategy only works for the *modified* lines of code -- eg. the `+...` in diffs, and not the `-...` in diffs. The reason is that `git blame --reverse` can't track a line of code's location past the commit that it was removed in. To permit comments that are left on lines of code that are removed to appear correctly in the UI, a separate approach is required for those comments. This PR performs two major changes, which have been complex to figure out, but are reasonably easy to understand: - When a comment is placed on a removed line in a PR, perform a `git blame --reverse` from the PR's base to the currently viewed commit, and use this information to record in the comment: - the **last commit that the line of code existed in** (stored in the `commit_sha` field) - the **line of code as of that commit** (stored in the `line` field, negative, to indicate that the comment is on a removal). - the **patch** where the comment was placed (stored in the field `patch`); existing functionality unchanged in this PR - When viewing any diff in the PR, for each comment on a removal, perform a diff from the `commit_sha` (last commit that the line of code existed in) to the current commit being viewed, and verify that within that diff the left-hand-side line removal still exists at the same line of code in the diff, by comparing the current diff with the stored patch. - If present, place the commit in the UI at the line number. - If the line of code no longer exists in the diff at that point (for example, it was removed, commented upon, and then re-added in a later commit), then the comment is considered outdated and isn't displayed. The algorithm used for marking a comment as "outdated" is also updated to use this approach. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12092 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
ca00f99c3f |
fix: when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit (#12055)
When performing `git blame` to identify the commit that a line of code came from, limit the blame to the commit that is currently being viewed in the UI. Before this change, the blame always occurred on the current head of the PR, causing these problems: - When you click ➕ to load the comment form, the form that is dynamically loaded would have it's commit field pulled from the current PR head. That may not actually reflect the code that you were viewing at the time you authored the comment -- it could be a newer commit that occurred by the author while you were reviewing. - When viewing a specific commit within a PR and leaving a comment, the blame would occur from the head -- if the file was changed in a later commit and the line-of-code moved up or down, the comment would be misplaced. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 ### 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--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055): <!--number 12055 --><!--line 0 --><!--description d2hlbiByZXZpZXdpbmcgaW4gUFJzLCBtYWtlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0aXZlIHRvIHRoZSB2aXNpYmxlIGNvZGUncyBjb21taXQ=-->when reviewing in PRs, make comments relative to the visible code's commit<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12055 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
40aa3a5c7d |
fix: mark code comments as Outdated based upon line-of-code existence in current PR commit (#12054)
Currently when a commit is pushed to a branch, code comments are marked as Outdated if a `git blame` on the current commit's code returns the same commit as the `git blame` did when the comment was originally created. This implementation doesn't make sense: - It doesn't handle the case correctly where the same line of code exists unaltered in the new commit, but it has been relocated (eg. new lines entered or removed above the location). - It falsely keeps the commit valid if the line of code that the comment was made upon has been removed, if, coincidentally, the line of code that now exists at the commit came from the same source commit. For example, if the line of code that the comment was on was deleted, but the next line of code came from the same commit, the comment will be kept as valid. This PR uses the logic introduced in #12015, using a `git blame --reverse` -- the commit & line that was identified as having the comment on it is reversed, and if it still exists in the new head, then the comment is considered valid. Otherwise it is marked as outdated. Automated tests are added primarily by revising the automated tests in #12015 -- a comment in an existing test case was marked as outdated, even though it shouldn't have been. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12054): <!--number 12054 --><!--line 0 --><!--description bWFyayBjb2RlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFzIE91dGRhdGVkIGJhc2VkIHVwb24gbGluZS1vZi1jb2RlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBpbiBjdXJyZW50IFBSIGNvbW1pdA==-->mark code comments as Outdated based upon line-of-code existence in current PR commit<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12054 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9fe0cbee02 |
fix: relocate PR review comments using git blame --reverse, improving comment placement (#12015)
When a review comment is placed on a PR in Forgejo, Forgejo performs a `git blame` to identify which commit originated the line, and records that commit and line number in the comment's database record. Later when the review is viewed, Forgejo currently makes no effort to place that comment in the correct *current* location, which may vary -- for example, if a PR had two commits and the comment was made on a line in the first commit, but the second commit changes line numbers in that file, the comment will appear in the incorrect location. This PR adds the usage of `git blame --reverse` to calculate the correct location to display the comment in the current view (whether reviewing the PR commit-by-commit, or "Files changed"). It certainly does not fix all problems with comment placement (see comments). Another major addition in this PR is a test harness for making relatively complex PRs and reviewing the diffs on the per-commit view and PR-diff views. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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 ### 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--> - Bug fixes - [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015): <!--number 12015 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVsb2NhdGUgUFIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzIHVzaW5nIGBnaXQgYmxhbWUgLS1yZXZlcnNlYCwgaW1wcm92aW5nIGNvbW1lbnQgcGxhY2VtZW50-->relocate PR review comments using `git blame --reverse`, improving comment placement<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant--> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12015 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
bdd2a1def7 |
fix: prevent actions workflows from generating OIDC tokens if not authorized in workflow (#12030)
When using Forgejo's `enable-openid-connect: true`, a URL is generated into the actions under `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` that can be used to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources authenticated as the action executing in this server on this repo. However, the endpoint of that url (`.../idtoken`) had unintentionally missed a `return` on an internal server error, and was missing a check that the action actually had `enable-openid-connect: true` on it. As a result, it was possible to generate a JWT for accessing third-party resources from an action that wasn't expected to be generating JWTs. In terms of real-world vulnerability, the most likely risk is that the JWT could be generated from a forked pull request. By not using the `$ACTIONS_ID_TOKEN_REQUEST_URL` and instead going directly to the `.../idtoken` endpoint, and parsing a generated JWT response that will be mixed with an error response, it's possible to retrieve a JWT in a forked pull request. It would require a slight misconfiguration on a third-party system to allow that JWT access, but it's a plausible risk. As this is a feature in Forgejo 15 that hasn't been released, it will be fixed in-public. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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... - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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. - Feature is not yet released. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12030 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9abc1b0144 |
refactor: reduce code duplication when accessing DefaultMaxInSize (#11999)
`DefaultMaxInSize` is an internal parameter for limiting the size of `field IN (...)` clauses in DB queries, which is a reasonable thing to do -- in addition to the errors noted when [originally introduced](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/4594), there are technical limits that apply to each of PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQLite which would prevent an unbounded size for a query like this. However: the size is incredibly small at 50, and, the implementation of `DefaultMaxInSize` is really wasteful with copy-and-paste coding. This PR: - introduces `GetByIDs` which fetches a `map[int64]*Model` from the database for an array of ID values, while respecting `IN` clause size limits - introduces `GetByFieldIn` which fetches a `map[int64][]*Model` from the database for an array of field values, while respecting `IN` clause size limits - uses `slices.Chunk` for other locations where queries are too complex for these implementations - bumps the `DefaultMaxInSize` parameter from 50 to 500, a conservative increase well under known limits, but 10x the current value: - PostgreSQL supports up to 1GB query text size with 65,535 parameters, but I've experienced performance degradation at high value counts - MySQL supports 64MB query text size without known limits of parameter count - SQLite supports 32,766 parameters in a query ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - Refactored functions are assumed to be covered by existing tests to some extent; that assumption is probably wrong but the changes here are relatively easily reviewed for correctness as well. - [ ] 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/11999 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6a879e79df |
test: fix intermittent test failure in TestPackageDebianConcurrent (#11997)
Fixes #11968. Adds deadlocks to the package `RetryTx` operations, and bumps the attempt count to 3. Technically this affects production code, not just test code, but the resulting failure is only likely to occur in highly concurrent operations when uploading packages to the debian registry for the first time for a user, which is more of a test artifact than a production likelihood. Manually tested by modifying the `Makefile` to add the `-test.count=25` option to the test command. This failed consistently on my dev system before this change, failed consistently after the deadlock err was added, and then succeeded consistently (multiple runs) after both changes were combined, giving me confidence that the intermittent failure is squashed. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - Fixing a test failure, so no new tests added, but they already failed. - 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/11997 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
15b4c5efe8 |
chore(deps): bump xorm to v1.3.9-forgejo.10 (#11992)
Brings [deadlock error type](https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/95), which should allow fixing #11968. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11992 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
e14e220651 |
perf: bulk load resolvers & reactions on pull request comments (#11988)
Optimize loading pull request review comments, which currently perform separate database queries for each comment in order to load the resolver of the comment, and the reactions on that comment, and the users on each reaction of the comments. I stumbled across this ugly code, which enticed me to look into this: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/80d840c1284e4f44b9efac208811b9ed26455ade/routers/web/repo/pull.go#L1107-L1120 It appeared to load the attachments from each comment on the pull request review page in separate database queries. It turned out to be a noop, as the attachments are already loaded in bulk: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/commit/80d840c1284e4f44b9efac208811b9ed26455ade/models/issues/comment_code.go#L120-L122 but the `findCodeComments` method loads the "resolver doer" and the reactions one-by-one for each comment. So I fixed that instead, and removed the ineffective deeply nested for loop. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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/11988 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6a99b6b0c1 |
fix: store pull mirror creds encrypted with keying (#11909)
Fixes #9629. New pull mirrors have credentials stored encrypted in the database, the same as push mirrors, rather than in the repository's `config` file. `git fetch` on the pull mirror is updated to use the credential store. Pull mirrors will have their credentials migrated to the encrypted storage in the database as they're synced or otherwise accessed via the web UI. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11909 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
8f5dd81537 |
fix: allow repository deletion when referenced by a repo-specific access token (#11927)
Fixes #11919. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - 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... - [ ] `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. - Will be a fix before the feature is released, therefore not "visible to users". Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11927 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <wetneb@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
2176403a8d |
fix: unique key violation in first-time concurrent debian package uploads to a user (#11881)
Fixes an intermittent test failure in `TestPackageDebianConcurrent`, [example](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/148747/jobs/9/attempt/1#jobstep-5-981), introduced by testing in #11776. This one is caused by duplicate writes to `user_setting` to store a GPG key (questionable place for that...). Confirmed reproduced in local testing and test now passes: ``` === TestPackageDebianConcurrent (tests/test_utils.go:344) === TestPackageDebianConcurrent/Concurrent_Upload (tests/integration/api_packages_debian_test.go:334) ... other duplicate key violations ... // TestPackageDebianConcurrent/Concurrent_Upload "2026/03/29 10:31:57 ...dels/user/setting.go:210:func1() [E] [Error SQL Query] INSERT INTO \"gtestschema\".\"user_setting\" (\"user_id\",\"setting_key\",\"setting_value\") VALUES ($1,$2,$3) RETURNING \"id\" [2 debian.key.private -----BEGIN PGP PRIVATE KEY BLOCK-----\n\n...snip...\n-----END PGP PRIVATE KEY BLOCK-----] - ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint \"UQE_user_setting_key_userid\" (SQLSTATE 23505)", PASS ``` No additional test required as it is already tripping a test failure. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. (already present and failing) - 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11881 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
|
8387974e2e |
ci: prevent usage of live application models & services in migrations (#11872)
Prevent access to "current" application models and services from migrations via `golangci` config: eg: ``` models/forgejo_migrations/v14a_ap-change-fedi-handle-structure.go:18:2: import 'forgejo.org/models/user' is not allowed from list 'migration-isolation': Migrations must not import application models. Application models will be the most recent schema for Forgejo, while migrations will be operating against the database schema that existed when they were authored. (depguard) user_model "forgejo.org/models/user" ^ models/forgejo_migrations/v14a_ap-change-fedi-handle-structure.go:21:2: import 'forgejo.org/services/user' is not allowed from list 'migration-isolation': Migrations must not import application services. Application services will reference application models which will use the most recent schema for Forgejo, while migrations will be operating against the database schema that existed when they were authored. (depguard) user_service "forgejo.org/services/user" ``` Fixes an existing migration issue where it isn't possible to add a new column to the `User` table ([test errors that occur](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/148633/jobs/10/attempt/1#jobstep-5-323)), but also guarantees that future migrations don't stumble into the same issue by inadvertently referencing live application code from historical migrations. Originally identified and draft fix by @codecat w/ proposed fix in #11870. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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. Co-authored-by: Melissa Geels <melissa@nimble.tools> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11872 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
e823e8cd69 |
fix: duplicate key violates unique constraint in concurrent debian package uploads (#11776)
Fixes #11438. Whenever a "unique constraint violation" error is encountered by package mutation, detect if a `xorm.ErrUniqueConstraintViolation` error occurs. If it does, retry the entire transaction. ## 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... - [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server. - I ran... - [ ] `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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11776 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
bdb87ac3d3 |
chore: remove duplicate release notes from Jan 8 security release (#11791)
As the security patches in #10719 were backported to [v11](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10722), [v13](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10721), and [v14](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10720), they shouldn't be present in the [v15 release notes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/milestone/36366) as "Security bug fixes", but they presently are:  Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11791 Reviewed-by: Antonin Delpeuch <wetneb@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9c41a5f717 |
fix: out of synchronization error after interrupting a PR merge by user-agent disconnect (#11821)
If the HTTP request to `/user/repo/pulls/N/merge` is cancelled by the user agent, don't stop work once we've passed validation and started to merge the PR. Go will automatically cancel the context if the user-agent disconnects, but that can leave Forgejo in an inconsistent state -- the `git` command can be cancelled at an arbitrary location, the `branch` database table update may not be completed, timers may not be stopped, cross-references may not be populated, etc. Added test `TestMergeHTTPRequestCancellation` stress-tests the fix by cancelling merge requests, and then verifying that the in-database repository state and in-repository database state are consistent. I've verified that this test fails if the fix is removed -- the in-database commit and commit messages don't match the repository in all PRs. This is a problem that likely affects other Forgejo endpoints. For example, even the PR merge API would be impacted. But this will be one of the most common real-world places for it to occur, so my thought is we'll see how well this fix works and what (if any) side-effects it has. We can apply a similar pattern in other areas if they are identified as problems. ## Checklist The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 ### 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11821 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
5365720abc |
ci: update tests to run debian trixie, remove manual installation from testing (#11801)
Forgejo CI is currently failing due to changes in debian testing packaging that are not compatible with installing `git` from testing onto a bookworm system (https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/actions/runs/147815/jobs/2/attempt/1#jobstep-3-144). Where `git` was being installed from testing it is replaced with just using trixie's `git 2.47.3`. Where `git-lfs` was being installed, it's been inlined with a simple `update` and `install`. ### 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/11801 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
0a8540f52f |
chore: link to AI Agreement in PR template (#11789)
Adds a sentence to the PR template calling attention to the AI Agreement, as noted recently in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11756#issuecomment-11959350. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11789 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
35b872f383 |
feat(ui): create repo-specific access tokens (#11696)
Adds a user interface for creating repo-specific access tokens (#11311). When the new option "Specific repositories" is selected, a search option appears. Each repository in the search result has an "Add" button to include it on the access token, and once included, a repository can be removed with the "Remove" button. This is a JS-free form. ## 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 ### Tests for JavaScript changes - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [x] 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)). - Technically there are no "JavaScript changes" in this PR, but e2e tests were added for browser interaction testing. ### Documentation - [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change. - TODO: planning to create documentation in https://forgejo.org/docs/next/user/token-scope/; there is none for public only tokens but I think this seems like a good place to add both. - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11696 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
a27f9a719e |
feat: ensure repo-specific access tokens can't perform repo admin operations (#11736)
Last known backend change for #11311, fixing up some loose ends on the repository APIs related to repo-specific access tokens. Adds automated testing, and aligns permissions where necessary, to ensure that repo-specific access tokens can't change the administrative state of the repositories that they are limited to. Repo-specific access tokens cannot be used to: - convert a mirror into a normal repo, - create a new repository from a template, - transfer ownership of a repository - create a new repository (already protected, but test automation added), - delete a repository (already protected, but test automation added), - editing a repository's settings (already protected, but test automation added). **Breaking**: The template generation (`POST /repos/{template_owner}/{template_repo}/generate`) and repository deletion (`DELETE /repos/{username}/{reponame}`) APIs have been updated to require the same permission scope as creating a new repository. Either `write:user` or `write:organization` is required, depending on the owner of the repository being created or deleted. ## 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11736 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
aef91ab1a3 |
ui: move "New access token" to a separate UI page (#11659)
We are updating the user's personal access token page (`/user/settings/applications`) to allow the creation of repo-specific tokens, adding a third option to "Repository and Organization Access". In preparation for this new UI, this PR moves the creation of access tokens to a new page accessed by "New access token". This also resolves a pet-peeve: the "Select permissions" dropdown on the inline edit form hides a *required* input for an access token. This section is expanded on the new dedicated page. (The Vue component used here is replaced with a JS-free alternative as well. This form component used to lose selected values when an error occurred, and it didn't make sense as a Vue component, so it has been translated into an HTML template instead.) ## 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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 ### Tests for JavaScript changes - I added test coverage for JavaScript changes... - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested. - [x] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11659 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
28e0af25b4 |
perf: remove redundant & incorrect filters on 'SearchRepoOptions.OwnerID' (#11729)
Improves the performance of the `/repo/search?uid=N` API call, which is used on the user's dashboard to load a repo list. More detailed notes are in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11702. Removes a redundant query condition (that a user was part of a team in an organization which could see a repo), and a condition that seems incorrect (that a repo could be seen just by being public within a private org, which is incorrect because that doesn't mean the user is a collaborator on the repo). Covered by over 30 test cases in `repo_list_test.go` which did not fail from these changes. Mutation testing (removing the remaining "2." condition) verified that the codepath is covered as tests did fail. ## 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 - I added test coverage for Go changes... - [ ] 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/11729 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandGusted
|
1d99ce0242 |
fix: incorrect DB error handling in 'POST /users/{username}/tokens' (#11682)
Came across a coding error from #11504 while working on adding a UI for repo-specific access tokens. I couldn't find a practical way to test this fix as there are no expected error conditions that will be returned here, just database-level errors, and the `SetFaultInjector` capability in testing is only integrated into unit tests, not integration tests. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11682 Reviewed-by: Cyborus <cyborus@disroot.org> Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
ed76e2a114 |
fix: create repo-specific access token unexpected behaviour with "repositories": [] (#11653)
When creating an access token via API, if `"repositories": []`, then it is expected that the intent of the user was to create a repo-specific access token, but the API currently creates an all-access access token instead. `"repositories": []` is expected to be an error, instead of an unexpectedly wide grant. Reported by @aahlenst during testing: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11604#issuecomment-11569816 ## 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... - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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. - Bugfix in unreleased feature. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11653 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6e804c8b1b |
feat(ui): display repositories accessible by repo-specific access tokens (#11604)
When an access token is repository specific, display the repositories that it can access when expanded in the UI (token **test** in this screenshot):  Default, collapsed view is unchanged:  Bulk loading of repositories is refactored out of the access token API endpoint into a `BulkGetRepositoriesForAccessTokens` method that can be used in both this UI, and the original API location. ## 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... - [ ] 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. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11604 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandGusted
|
20388a7bee |
chore(deps): bump xorm to v1.3.9-forgejo.8 (#11624)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11608 via https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/81. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11624 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
a012b8bf36 |
refactor: replace ActionRunnerToken.OwnerID & RepoID with optional.Option[int64] (#11601)
Currently: - In the database, `NULL` is used in `action_runner_token.owner_id` & `.repo_id` to represent an absent value, as required by the foreign key - In the code, `0` is used in `ActionRunnerToken.OwnerID` and `.RepoID` to represent an absent value This PR replaces the `int64` fields with `optional.Option[int64]` which allows a single data type to be used for both cases, and removes the usage of the value `0` as a placeholder. This change has a limited scope -- although `ActionRunnerToken` uses `NULL` values in the database, the related table `ActionRunner` still uses zero-values for `OwnerID` and `RepoID`. This means a lot of code interacting with both of these tables still uses `0` values, such as the UI. The changes here were stopped at a reasonable point to avoid cascading into all places that use the `ActionRunner` table. (I'll continue this work in the future to enable foreign keys on `ActionRunner`, but likely after #11516 is completed to avoid serious conflict resolution problems.) ## 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/11601 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
f93d2cb261 |
ci: detect and prevent empty case statements in Go code (#11593)
One of the security patches released 2026-03-09 [fixed a vulnerability](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11513/commits/d1c7b04d09f6a13896eaa1322ac690b2021539da) caused by a misapplication of Go `case` statements, where the implementation would have been correct if Go `case` statements automatically fall through to the next case block, but they do not. This PR adds a semgrep rule which detects any empty `case` statement and raises an error, in order to prevent this coding mistake in the future. For example, code like this will now trigger a build error: ```go switch setting.Protocol { case setting.HTTPUnix: case setting.FCGI: case setting.FCGIUnix: default: defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://" } ``` Example error: ``` cmd/web.go ❯❯❱ semgrep.config.forgejo-switch-empty-case switch has a case block with no content. This is treated as "break" by Go, but developers may confuse it for "fallthrough". To fix this error, disambiguate by using "break" or "fallthrough". 279┆ switch setting.Protocol { 280┆ case setting.HTTPUnix: 281┆ case setting.FCGI: 282┆ case setting.FCGIUnix: 283┆ default: 284┆ defaultLocalURL := string(setting.Protocol) + "://" 285┆ if setting.HTTPAddr == "0.0.0.0" { 286┆ defaultLocalURL += "localhost" 287┆ } else { 288┆ defaultLocalURL += setting.HTTPAddr ``` As described in the error output, this error can be fixed by explicitly listing `break` (the real Go behaviour, to do nothing in the block), or by listing `fallthrough` (if the intent was to fall through). All existing code triggering this detection has been changed to `break` (or, rarely, irrelevant cases have been removed), which should maintain the same code functionality. While performing this fixup, a light analysis was performed on each case and they *appeared* correct, but with ~65 cases I haven't gone into extreme depth. Tests are present for the semgrep rule in `.semgrep/tests/go.go`. ## 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). ### 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/11593 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
c69ba8b1c1 | chore: release notes from #11514 & #11515 backports | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
d442f83a09 |
chore: support Option[T] as a type on database schema structs (#11553)
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>
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
2db6210f69 |
feat: read, create, & delete repo-specific access tokens via API (#11504)
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> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
eef3111cc7 |
chore(deps): upgrade xorm to v1.3.9-forgejo.7 (#11538)
Primarily to gain access to https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/67 & https://code.forgejo.org/xorm/xorm/pulls/66 which allows Forgejo to implement a few methods and support `optional.Option[T]` in database beans for nullable fields. Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11538 Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMichael Kriese
|
7fdb31c8ef |
chore: add more diagnostic output to dbfs Stat error (#11525)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11525 Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
99984dac4d |
feat: remove admin-level permissions from repo-specific & public-only access tokens (#11468)
This PR is part of a series (#11311). If the user authenticating to an API call is a Forgejo site administrator, or a Forgejo repo administrator, a wide variety of permission and ownership checks in the API are either bypassed, or are bypassable. If a user has created an access token with restricted resources, I understand the intent of the user is to create a token which has a layer of risk reduction in the event that the token is lost/leaked to an attacker. For this reason, it makes sense to me that restricted scope access tokens shouldn't inherit the owner's administrator access. My intent is that repo-specific access tokens [will only be able to access specific authorization scopes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/design/issues/50#issuecomment-11093951), probably: `repository:read`, `repository:write`, `issue:read`, `issue:write`, (`organization:read` / `user:read` maybe). This means that *most* admin access is not intended to be affected by this because repo-specific access tokens won't have, for example, `admin:write` scope. However, administrative access still grants elevated permissions in some areas that are relevant to these scopes, and need to be restricted: - The `?sudo=otheruser` query parameter allows site administrators to impersonate other users in the API. - Repository management rules are different for a site administrator, allowing them to create repos for another user, create repos in another organization, migrate a repository to an arbitrary owner, and transfer a repository to a prviate organization. - Administrators have access to extra data through some APIs which would be in scope: the detailed configuration of branch protection rules, the some details of repository deploy keys (which repo, and which scope -- seems odd), (user:read -- user SSH keys, activity feeds of private users, user profiles of private users, user webhook configurations). - Pull request reviews have additional perms for repo administrators, including the ability to dismiss PR reviews, delete PR reviews, and view draft PR reviews. - Repo admins and site admins can comment on locked issues, and related to comments can edit or delete other user's comments and attachments. - Repo admins can manage and view logged time on behalf of other users. A handful of these permissions may make sense for repo-specific access tokens, but most of them clearly exceed the risk that would be expected from creating a limited scope access token. I'd generally prefer to take a restrictive approach, and we can relax it if real-world use-cases come in -- users will have a workaround of creating an access token without repo-specific restrictions if they are blocked from needed access. **Breaking:** The administration restrictions introduced in this PR affect both repo-specific access tokens, and existing public-only access tokens. ## 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. - Although repo-specific access tokens are not yet exposed to end users, the breaking changes to public-only tokens will be visible to users and require release notes. - [ ] 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/11468 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
3d6acf5e8c |
ci: add semgrep detection for API code ignoring repo-specific access tokens (#11476)
This PR is part of a series (#11311). Prevents the usage of three internal APIs in the web API code: - `repo_model.SearchRepoOptions{}` without an `AuthorizationReducer` - `organization.SearchTeamRepoOptions{}` without an `AuthorizationReducer` - `access_model.GetUserRepoPermission()`, which doesn't take an `AuthorizationReducer` -- use `GetUserRepoPermissionWithReducer` instead. A couple lingering usages are marked with `// nosemgrep: ...` as they have been inspected and considered correct as-is. The `GetUserRepoPermission` is tested via the `.semgrep/tests` files; the other rules have been tested manually. ## 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). ### 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/11476 Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net> |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
6bac9e29e7 |
Revert "fix: ensure actions logs are transferred when a task is done (#10008)" (#11462)
This reverts commit
|
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
b394e66d5f | docs: add release notes for PR #11458 | ||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
0da4505a49 | feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/issues/search | ||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
2192184d9b | feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/search | ||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
0eca229d15 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /teams/{id}/repos
**Breaking*: /teams/{id}/repos previously allowed read access to private
repositories even if a "public-only" access token was in-use. This has
been restricted to only return public repositories in this case.
|
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
cac675bc21 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens on /users/{username}/repos & /orgs/{org}/repos
**Breaking**: when using a public-only access tokens, private
repositories were not filtered out by the `/users/{username}/repos` or
`/orgs/{org}/repos` APIs. This access has been removed in this change.
|
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
a309db27f2 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /user/repos
**Breaking**: a user's own public-only access tokens were previously visible in the `/users/repos` API. This access has been removed in this change. |
||
|
Mathieu Fenniak
|
4bd81d3363 | feat: add authorization reducer support to SearchRepoOptions | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
e870b9cb74 | docs: add release notes for PR #11457 | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
b9be4b7648 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repositories/{id}
**Breaking**: accessing the `/repositories/{id}` API with a public-only
access token did not restrict read access to only public repositories.
As part of a consolidation of permission logic with repo-specific access
tokens, this access has not been restricted.
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
bbb7d52fc0 | feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/requested_reviewers | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
f9a2167105 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls & /repos/{owner}/{repo}/compare/{basehead} APIs
As these APIs only work on forks, and it's not possible to change the visibility of a fork from its parent, only testing the API access pattern against the head is sufficient. Also it is not a breaking change due to checkTokenPublicOnly middleware already enforcing this for public-only scopes, and the lack of ability to change a fork's visibility. |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
94dd94c2c0 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in issue dependency & blocking modification APIs
**Breaking**: Public-only tokens previously had the capability to make issue dependencies and block issues w/ data from private repositories through these APIs, which has been revoked by this change to support fine-grained access tokens. |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
26ffe3106c |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/blocks
**Breaking**: Public-only tokens previously had the capability to view private repositories through this API, which has been revoked by this change to support fine-grained access tokens. |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
e4ee1a2756 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies
**Breaking**: Public-only tokens previously had the capability to view private repositories through this API, which has been revoked by this change to support fine-grained access tokens. |
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
0628776cad | feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/timeline | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
0c2ece0ae7 |
feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /teams/{id}/repos/{org}/{repo}
**Breaking*: /teams/{id}/repos/{org}/{repo} previously allowed read
access to private repositories even if a "public-only" access token was
in-use. This has been restricted to only return public repositories in
this case.
|
||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
c89504d573 | feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /user/subscriptions & /users/{username}/subscriptions | ||
|
Mathieu FenniakandMathieu Fenniak
|
9c748e87e1 | feat: implement fine-grained access tokens in /user/starred & /users/{username}/starred |