- Add the ability to block a user via their profile page.
- This will unstar their repositories and visa versa.
- Blocked users cannot create issues or pull requests on your the doer's repositories (mind that this is not the case for organizations).
- Blocked users cannot comment on the doer's opened issues or pull requests.
- Blocked users cannot add reactions to doer's comments.
- Blocked users cannot cause a notification trough mentioning the doer.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/540
(cherry picked from commit 687d852480)
(cherry picked from commit 0c32a4fde5)
(cherry picked from commit 1791130e3c)
(cherry picked from commit 37858b7e8f)
(cherry picked from commit a3e2bfd7e9)
(cherry picked from commit 7009b9fe87)
Conflicts: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1014
routers/web/user/profile.go
templates/user/profile.tmpl
(cherry picked from commit b2aec34791)
(cherry picked from commit e2f1b73752)
[MODERATION] organization blocking a user (#802)
- Resolves#476
- Follow up for: #540
- Ensure that the doer and blocked person cannot follow each other.
- Ensure that the block person cannot watch doer's repositories.
- Add unblock button to the blocked user list.
- Add blocked since information to the blocked user list.
- Add extra testing to moderation code.
- Blocked user will unwatch doer's owned repository upon blocking.
- Add flash messages to let the user know the block/unblock action was successful.
- Add "You haven't blocked any users" message.
- Add organization blocking a user.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/802
(cherry picked from commit 0505a10421)
(cherry picked from commit 37b4e6ef9b)
(cherry picked from commit c17c121f2c)
[MODERATION] organization blocking a user (#802) (squash)
Changes to adapt to:
6bbccdd177 Improve AJAX link and modal confirm dialog (#25210)
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/882/files#issuecomment-945962
Refs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/882#issue-330561
(cherry picked from commit 523635f83c)
(cherry picked from commit 4743eaa6a0)
(cherry picked from commit eff5b43d2e)
Conflicts: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1014
routers/web/user/profile.go
(cherry picked from commit 9d359be5ed)
(cherry picked from commit b1f3069a22)
[MODERATION] add user blocking API
- Follow up for: #540, #802
- Add API routes for user blocking from user and organization
perspective.
- The new routes have integration testing.
- The new model functions have unit tests.
- Actually quite boring to write and to read this pull request.
(cherry picked from commit f3afaf15c7)
(cherry picked from commit 6d754db3e5)
(cherry picked from commit 2a89ddc0ac)
(cherry picked from commit 4a147bff7e)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/api.go
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl
(cherry picked from commit bb8c339185)
(cherry picked from commit 5a11569a01)
(cherry picked from commit 2373c801ee)
[MODERATION] restore redirect on unblock
ctx.RedirectToFirst(ctx.FormString("redirect_to"), ctx.ContextUser.HomeLink())
was replaced by
ctx.JSONOK()
in 128d77a3a Following up fixes for "Fix inconsistent user profile layout across tabs" (#25739)
thus changing the behavior (nicely spotted by the tests). This
restores it.
(cherry picked from commit 597c243707)
(cherry picked from commit cfa539e590)
[MODERATION] Add test case (squash)
- Add an test case, to test an property of the function.
(cherry picked from commit 70dadb1916)
[MODERATION] Block adding collaborators
- Ensure that the doer and blocked user cannot add each other as
collaborators to repositories.
- The Web UI gets an detailed message of the specific situation, the API
gets an generic Forbidden code.
- Unit tests has been added.
- Integration testing for Web and API has been added.
- This commit doesn't introduce removing each other as collaborators on
the block action, due to the complexity of database calls that needs to
be figured out. That deserves its own commit and test code.
(cherry picked from commit 747be949a1)
[MODERATION] move locale_en-US.ini strings to avoid conflicts
Conflicts:
web_src/css/org.css
web_src/css/user.css
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1180
(cherry picked from commit e53f955c88)
Conflicts:
services/issue/comments.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1212
(cherry picked from commit b4a454b576)
Conflicts:
models/forgejo_migrations/migrate.go
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
services/pull/pull.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1264
[MODERATION] Remove blocked user collaborations with doer
- When the doer blocks an user, who is also an collaborator on an
repository that the doer owns, remove that collaboration.
- Added unit tests.
- Refactor the unit test to be more organized.
(cherry picked from commit ec87016178)
(cherry picked from commit 313e6174d8)
[MODERATION] QoL improvements (squash)
- Ensure that organisations cannot be blocked. It currently has no
effect, as all blocked operations cannot be executed from an
organisation standpoint.
- Refactored the API route to make use of the `UserAssignmentAPI`
middleware.
- Make more use of `t.Run` so that the test code is more clear about
which block of code belongs to which test case.
- Added more integration testing (to ensure the organisations cannot be
blocked and some authorization/permission checks).
(cherry picked from commit e9d638d075)
[MODERATION] s/{{avatar/{{ctx.AvatarUtils.Avatar/
(cherry picked from commit ce8b30be13)
(cherry picked from commit f911dc4025)
Conflicts:
options/locale/locale_en-US.ini
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1354
(cherry picked from commit c1b37b7fda)
(cherry picked from commit 856a2e0903)
[MODERATION] Show graceful error on comment creation
- When someone is blocked by the repository owner or issue poster and
try to comment on that issue, they get shown a graceful error.
- Adds integration test.
(cherry picked from commit 490646302e)
(cherry picked from commit d3d88667cb)
(cherry picked from commit 6818de13a9)
[MODERATION] Show graceful error on comment creation (squash) typo
(cherry picked from commit 1588d4834a)
(cherry picked from commit d510ea52d0)
(cherry picked from commit 8249e93a14)
[MODERATION] Refactor integration testing (squash)
- Motivation for this PR is that I'd noticed that a lot of repeated
calls are happening between the test functions and that certain tests
weren't using helper functions like `GetCSRF`, therefor this refactor of
the integration tests to keep it: clean, small and hopefully more
maintainable and understandable.
- There are now three integration tests: `TestBlockUser`,
`TestBlockUserFromOrganization` and `TestBlockActions` (and has been
moved in that order in the source code).
- `TestBlockUser` is for doing blocking related actions as an user and
`TestBlockUserFromOrganization` as an organisation, even though they
execute the same kind of tests they do not share any database calls or
logic and therefor it currently doesn't make sense to merge them
together (hopefully such oppurtinutiy might be presented in the future).
- `TestBlockActions` now contain all tests for actions that should be
blocked after blocking has happened, most tests now share the same doer
and blocked users and a extra fixture has been added to make this
possible for the comment test.
- Less code, more comments and more re-use between tests.
(cherry picked from commit ffb393213d)
(cherry picked from commit 85505e0f81)
(cherry picked from commit 0f3cf17761)
[MODERATION] Fix network error (squash)
- Fix network error toast messages on user actions such as follow and
unfollow. This happened because the javascript code now expects an JSON
to be returned, but this wasn't the case due to
cfa539e590127b4953b010fba3dea21c82a1714.
- The integration testing has been adjusted to instead test for the
returned flash cookie.
(cherry picked from commit 112bc25e54)
(cherry picked from commit 1194fe4899)
(cherry picked from commit 9abb95a844)
[MODERATION] Modernize frontend (squash)
- Unify blocked users list.
- Use the new flex list classes for blocked users list to avoid using
the CSS helper classes and thereby be consistent in the design.
- Fix the modal by using the new modal class.
- Remove the icon in the modal as looks too big in the new design.
- Fix avatar not displaying as it was passing the context where the user
should've been passed.
- Don't use italics for 'Blocked since' text.
- Use namelink template to display the user's name and homelink.
(cherry picked from commit ec935a16a3)
(cherry picked from commit 67f37c8346)
Conflicts:
models/user/follow.go
models/user/user_test.go
routers/api/v1/user/follower.go
routers/web/shared/user/header.go
routers/web/user/profile.go
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1468
This field adds the possibility to set the update date when modifying
an issue through the API.
A 'NoAutoDate' in-memory field is added in the Issue struct.
If the update_at field is set, NoAutoDate is set to true and the
Issue's UpdatedUnix field is filled.
That information is passed down to the functions that actually updates
the database, which have been modified to not auto update dates if
requested.
A guard is added to the 'EditIssue' API call, to checks that the
udpate_at date is between the issue's creation date and the current
date (to avoid 'malicious' changes). It also limits the new feature
to project's owners and admins.
(cherry picked from commit c524d33402)
Add a SetIssueUpdateDate() function in services/issue.go
That function is used by some API calls to set the NoAutoDate and
UpdatedUnix fields of an Issue if an updated_at date is provided.
(cherry picked from commit f061caa655)
Add an updated_at field to the API calls related to Issue's Labels.
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's labels.
(cherry picked from commit ea36cf80f5)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's content, and is set as the
asset creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 96150971ca)
Checking Issue changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPIEditIssueWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 4926a5d7a2)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment creation
The update date is used as the comment creation date, and is applied to
the issue as the update creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 76c8faecdc)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment edition
The update date is used as the comment update date, and is applied to
the issue as an update date.
(cherry picked from commit cf787ad7fd)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for comment's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the comment, and is set as the asset
creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 1e4ff424d3)
Checking Comment changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPICreateCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit da932152f1)
Pettier code to set the update time of comments
Now uses sess.AllCols().NoAutoToime().SetExpr("updated_unix", ...)
XORM is smart enough to compose one single SQL UPDATE which all
columns + updated_unix.
(cherry picked from commit 1f6a42808d)
Issue edition: Keep the max of the milestone and issue update dates.
When editing an issue via the API, an updated_at date can be provided.
If the EditIssue call changes the issue's milestone, the milestone's
update date is to be changed accordingly, but only with a greater
value.
This ensures that a milestone's update date is the max of all issue's
update dates.
(cherry picked from commit 8f22ea182e)
Rewrite the 'AutoDate' tests using subtests
Also add a test to check the permissions to set a date, and a test
to check update dates on milestones.
The tests related to 'AutoDate' are:
- TestAPIEditIssueAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueMilestoneAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 961fd13c55)
(cherry picked from commit d52f4eea44)
(cherry picked from commit 3540ea2a43)
Conflicts:
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1415
(cherry picked from commit 56720ade00)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_label.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1462
Fix#26129
Replace #26258
This PR will introduce a transaction on creating pull request so that if
some step failed, it will rollback totally. And there will be no dirty
pull request exist.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
I noticed that `issue_service.CreateComment` adds transaction operations
on `issues_model.CreateComment`, we can merge the two functions and we
can avoid calling each other's methods in the `services` layer.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
To avoid deadlock problem, almost database related functions should be
have ctx as the first parameter.
This PR do a refactor for some of these functions.
This PR replaces all string refName as a type `git.RefName` to make the
code more maintainable.
Fix#15367
Replaces #23070
It also fixed a bug that tags are not sync because `git remote --prune
origin` will not remove local tags if remote removed.
We in fact should use `git fetch --prune --tags origin` but not `git
remote update origin` to do the sync.
Some answer from ChatGPT as ref.
> If the git fetch --prune --tags command is not working as expected,
there could be a few reasons why. Here are a few things to check:
>
>Make sure that you have the latest version of Git installed on your
system. You can check the version by running git --version in your
terminal. If you have an outdated version, try updating Git and see if
that resolves the issue.
>
>Check that your Git repository is properly configured to track the
remote repository's tags. You can check this by running git config
--get-all remote.origin.fetch and verifying that it includes
+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*. If it does not, you can add it by running git
config --add remote.origin.fetch "+refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*".
>
>Verify that the tags you are trying to prune actually exist on the
remote repository. You can do this by running git ls-remote --tags
origin to list all the tags on the remote repository.
>
>Check if any local tags have been created that match the names of tags
on the remote repository. If so, these local tags may be preventing the
git fetch --prune --tags command from working properly. You can delete
local tags using the git tag -d command.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
This adds the ability to pin important Issues and Pull Requests. You can
also move pinned Issues around to change their Position. Resolves#2175.
## Screenshots
The Design was mostly copied from the Projects Board.
## Implementation
This uses a new `pin_order` Column in the `issue` table. If the value is
set to 0, the Issue is not pinned. If it's set to a bigger value, the
value is the Position. 1 means it's the first pinned Issue, 2 means it's
the second one etc. This is dived into Issues and Pull requests for each
Repo.
## TODO
- [x] You can currently pin as many Issues as you want. Maybe we should
add a Limit, which is configurable. GitHub uses 3, but I prefer 6, as
this is better for bigger Projects, but I'm open for suggestions.
- [x] Pin and Unpin events need to be added to the Issue history.
- [x] Tests
- [x] Migration
**The feature itself is currently fully working, so tester who may find
weird edge cases are very welcome!**
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
1. Remove unused fields/methods in web context.
2. Make callers call target function directly instead of the light
wrapper like "IsUserRepoReaderSpecific"
3. The "issue template" code shouldn't be put in the "modules/context"
package, so move them to the service package.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Close#24195
Some of the changes are taken from my another fix
f07b0de997
in #20147 (although that PR was discarded ....)
The bug is:
1. The old code doesn't handle `removedfile` event correctly
2. The old code doesn't provide attachments for type=CommentTypeReview
This PR doesn't intend to refactor the "upload" code to a perfect state
(to avoid making the review difficult), so some legacy styles are kept.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
The `commit_id` property name is the same as equivalent functionality in
GitHub. If the action was not caused by a commit, an empty string is
used.
This can for example be used to automatically add a Resolved label to an
issue fixed by a commit, or clear it when the issue is reopened.
When deleting a closed issue, we should update both `NumIssues`and
`NumClosedIssues`, or `NumOpenIssues`(`= NumIssues -NumClosedIssues`)
will be wrong. It's the same for pull requests.
Releated to #21557.
Alse fixed two harmless problems:
- The SQL to check issue/PR total numbers is wrong, that means it will
update the numbers even if they are correct.
- Replace legacy `num_issues = num_issues + 1` operations with
`UpdateRepoIssueNumbers`.
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix#16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Fix#20456
At some point during the 1.17 cycle abbreviated refishs to issue
branches started breaking. This is likely due serious inconsistencies in
our management of refs throughout Gitea - which is a bug needing to be
addressed in a different PR. (Likely more than one)
We should try to use non-abbreviated `fullref`s as much as possible.
That is where a user has inputted a abbreviated `refish` we should add
`refs/heads/` if it is `branch` etc. I know people keep writing and
merging PRs that remove prefixes from stored content but it is just
wrong and it keeps causing problems like this. We should only remove the
prefix at the time of
presentation as the prefix is the only way of knowing umambiguously and
permanently if the `ref` is referring to a `branch`, `tag` or `commit` /
`SHA`. We need to make it so that every ref has the appropriate prefix,
and probably also need to come up with some definitely unambiguous way
of storing `SHA`s if they're used in a `ref` or `refish` field. We must
not store a potentially
ambiguous `refish` as a `ref`. (Especially when referring a `tag` -
there is no reason why users cannot create a `branch` with the same
short name as a `tag` and vice versa and any attempt to prevent this
will fail. You can even create a `branch` and a
`tag` that matches the `SHA` pattern.)
To that end in order to fix this bug, when parsing issue templates check
the provided `Ref` (here a `refish` because almost all users do not know
or understand the subtly), if it does not start with `refs/` add the
`BranchPrefix` to it. This allows people to make their templates refer
to a `tag` but not to a `SHA` directly. (I don't think that is
particularly unreasonable but if people disagree I can make the `refish`
be checked to see if it matches the `SHA` pattern.)
Next we need to handle the issue links that are already written. The
links here are created with `git.RefURL`
Here we see there is a bug introduced in #17551 whereby the provided
`ref` argument can be double-escaped so we remove the incorrect external
escape. (The escape added in #17551 is in the right place -
unfortunately I missed that the calling function was doing the wrong
thing.)
Then within `RefURL()` we check if an unprefixed `ref` (therefore
potentially a `refish`) matches the `SHA` pattern before assuming that
is actually a `commit` - otherwise is assumed to be a `branch`. This
will handle most of the problem cases excepting the very unusual cases
where someone has deliberately written a `branch` to look like a `SHA1`.
But please if something is called a `ref` or interpreted as a `ref` make
it a full-ref before storing or using it. By all means if something is a
`branch` assume the prefix is removed but always add it back in if you
are using it as a `ref`. Stop storing abbreviated `branch` names and
`tag` names - which are `refish` as a `ref`. It will keep on causing
problems like this.
Fix#20456
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Fix#19513
This PR introduce a new db method `InTransaction(context.Context)`,
and also builtin check on `db.TxContext` and `db.WithTx`.
There is also a new method `db.AutoTx` has been introduced but could be used by other PRs.
`WithTx` will always open a new transaction, if a transaction exist in context, return an error.
`AutoTx` will try to open a new transaction if no transaction exist in context.
That means it will always enter a transaction if there is no error.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
When actions besides "delete" are performed on issues, the milestone
counter is updated. However, since deleting issues goes through a
different code path, the associated milestone's count wasn't being
updated, resulting in inaccurate counts until another issue in the same
milestone had a non-delete action performed on it.
I verified this change fixes the inaccurate counts using a local docker
build.
Fixes#21254
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
* Check if project has the same repository id with issue when assign project to issue
* Check if issue's repository id match project's repository id
* Add more permission checking
* Remove invalid argument
* Fix errors
* Add generic check
* Remove duplicated check
* Return error + add check for new issues
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
* Move access and repo permission to models/perm/access
* fix test
* fix git test
* Move functions sequence
* Some improvements per @KN4CK3R and @delvh
* Move issues related code to models/issues
* Move some issues related sub package
* Merge
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Fix test
* Rename some files
The review request feature was added in https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/10756,
where the doer got explicitly excluded from available reviewers. I don't see a
functionality or security related reason to forbid this case.
As shown by GitHubs implementation, it may be useful to self-request a review,
to be reminded oneselves about reviewing, while communicating to team mates that a
review is missing.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
