Add an optional Name field to webhooks so users can give them
human-readable labels instead of relying only on URLs. The webhook
overview page now displays names when available, or falls back to the
URL for unnamed webhooks.
Fixes#37025
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
- delete reaction endpoints is changed to return 204 No Content rather
than 200 with no content.
## Summary
Add swagger:enum annotations and migrate all enum comments from the
deprecated comma-separated format to JSON arrays. Introduce
NotifySubjectStateType with open/closed/merged values. Fix delete
reaction endpoints to return 204 instead of 200.
Adds validation constraints to repository creation inputs, enforcing
max-length limits for labels/license/readme and enum validation for
trust model and object format. Updates both the API option struct and
the web form struct to keep validation consistent.
This adds a per-repository default PR base branch and wires it through
PR entry points. It updates compare links and recently pushed branch
prompts to respect the configured base branch, and prevents auto-merge
cleanup from deleting the configured base branch on same-repo PRs.
## Behavior changes
- New PR compare links on repo home/issue list and branch list honor the
configured default PR base branch.
- The "recently pushed new branches" prompt now compares against the
configured base branch.
- Auto-merge branch cleanup skips deleting the configured base branch
(same-repo PRs only).
---------
Signed-off-by: Louis <116039387+tototomate123@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Similar to GitHub, release notes can now be generated automatically.
The generator is server-side and gathers the merged PRs and contributors
and returns the corresponding Markdown text.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This pull request adds a GitHub-compatible API endpoint to lock and
unlock an issue.
The following routes exist now:
- `PUT /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{id}/lock` to lock an issue
- `DELETE /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{id}/lock` to unlock an issue
Fixes#33677Fixes#20012
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Fix#2616
This PR adds a new sort option for exclusive labels.
For exclusive labels, a new property is exposed called "order", while in
the UI options are populated automatically in the `Sort` column (see
screenshot below) for each exclusive label scope.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Follow #33127Fix#8649, fix#639
This is a complete solution. A repo unit could be set to:
* Anonymous read (non-signed-in user)
* Everyone read (signed-in user)
* Everyone write (wiki-only)
Extract from #33320
This PR uses a map instead of a struct to store webhook event
information. It removes many duplicated functions and makes the logic
clearer.
Found while investigating #33210.
This line no longer makes sense because the form field "TagName" is
required, so this would mean that this code path would never be covered.
Because it isn't covered, we end up going down the "update release"
logic where we eventually set `Release.IsTag` to false (meaning it will
now be treated as a release instead of a tag).
This snapshot rewrites the condition to ensure that we aren't trying to
create a tag that already exists.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
## Solves
Currently for rules to re-order them you have to alter the creation
date. so you basicly have to delete and recreate them in the right
order. This is more than just inconvinient ...
## Solution
Add a new col for prioritization
## Demo WebUI Video
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/92182a31-9705-4ac5-b6e3-9bb74108cbd1
---
*Sponsored by Kithara Software GmbH*
Follow #32460
Now the code could be much clearer than before and easier to maintain. A
lot of legacy code is removed.
Manually tested.
This PR is large enough, that fine tunes could be deferred to the future if
there is no bug found or design problem.
Screenshots:
<details>
</details>
This introduces a new flag `BlockAdminMergeOverride` on the branch
protection rules that prevents admins/repo owners from bypassing branch
protection rules and merging without approvals or failing status checks.
Fixes#17131
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Fixes#22722
### Problem
Currently, it is not possible to force push to a branch with branch
protection rules in place. There are often times where this is necessary
(CI workflows/administrative tasks etc).
The current workaround is to rename/remove the branch protection,
perform the force push, and then reinstate the protections.
### Solution
Provide an additional section in the branch protection rules to allow
users to specify which users with push access can also force push to the
branch. The default value of the rule will be set to `Disabled`, and the
UI is intuitive and very similar to the `Push` section.
It is worth noting in this implementation that allowing force push does
not override regular push access, and both will need to be enabled for a
user to force push.
This applies to manual force push to a remote, and also in Gitea UI
updating a PR by rebase (which requires force push)
This modifies the `BranchProtection` API structs to add:
- `enable_force_push bool`
- `enable_force_push_whitelist bool`
- `force_push_whitelist_usernames string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_teams string[]`
- `force_push_whitelist_deploy_keys bool`
### Updated Branch Protection UI:
<img width="943" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/7491899c-d816-45d5-be84-8512abd156bf">
### Pull Request `Update branch by Rebase` option enabled with source
branch `test` being a protected branch:
<img width="1038" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/79623665/57ead13e-9006-459f-b83c-7079e6f4c654">
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
This PR split the `Board` into two parts. One is the struct has been
renamed to `Column` and the second we have a `Template Type`.
But to make it easier to review, this PR will not change the database
schemas, they are just renames. The database schema changes could be in
future PRs.
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: yp05327 <576951401@qq.com>
Since `modules/context` has to depend on `models` and many other
packages, it should be moved from `modules/context` to
`services/context` according to design principles. There is no logic
code change on this PR, only move packages.
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/context` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context`
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/contexttest` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/contexttest` because of depending on
context
- Move `code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/upload` to
`code.gitea.io/gitea/services/context/upload` because of depending on
context
Clarify when "string" should be used (and be escaped), and when
"template.HTML" should be used (no need to escape)
And help PRs like #29059 , to render the error messages correctly.
With this option, it is possible to require a linear commit history with
the following benefits over the next best option `Rebase+fast-forward`:
The original commits continue existing, with the original signatures
continuing to stay valid instead of being rewritten, there is no merge
commit, and reverting commits becomes easier.
Closes#24906
As more and more options can be set for creating the repository, I don't
think we should put all of them into the creation web page which will
make things look complicated and confusing.
And I think we need some rules about how to decide which should/should
not be put in creating a repository page. One rule I can imagine is if
this option can be changed later and it's not a MUST on the creation,
then it can be removed on the page. So I found trust model is the first
one.
This PR removed the trust model selections on creating a repository web
page and kept others as before.
This is also a preparation for #23894 which will add a choice about SHA1
or SHA256 that cannot be changed once the repository created.
Fixes#27114.
* In Gitea 1.12 (#9532), a "dismiss stale approvals" branch protection
setting was introduced, for ignoring stale reviews when verifying the
approval count of a pull request.
* In Gitea 1.14 (#12674), the "dismiss review" feature was added.
* This caused confusion with users (#25858), as "dismiss" now means 2
different things.
* In Gitea 1.20 (#25882), the behavior of the "dismiss stale approvals"
branch protection was modified to actually dismiss the stale review.
For some users this new behavior of dismissing the stale reviews is not
desirable.
So this PR reintroduces the old behavior as a new "ignore stale
approvals" branch protection setting.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- Remove `ObjectFormatID`
- Remove function `ObjectFormatFromID`.
- Use `Sha1ObjectFormat` directly but not a pointer because it's an
empty struct.
- Store `ObjectFormatName` in `repository` struct
Refactor Hash interfaces and centralize hash function. This will allow
easier introduction of different hash function later on.
This forms the "no-op" part of the SHA256 enablement patch.
close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/16321
Provided a webhook trigger for requesting someone to review the Pull
Request.
Some modifications have been made to the returned `PullRequestPayload`
based on the GitHub webhook settings, including:
- add a description of the current reviewer object as
`RequestedReviewer` .
- setting the action to either **review_requested** or
**review_request_removed** based on the operation.
- adding the `RequestedReviewers` field to the issues_model.PullRequest.
This field will be loaded into the PullRequest through
`LoadRequestedReviewers()` when `ToAPIPullRequest` is called.
After the Pull Request is merged, I will supplement the relevant
documentation.
Replace #16455Close#21803
Mixing different Gitea contexts together causes some problems:
1. Unable to respond proper content when error occurs, eg: Web should
respond HTML while API should respond JSON
2. Unclear dependency, eg: it's unclear when Context is used in
APIContext, which fields should be initialized, which methods are
necessary.
To make things clear, this PR introduces a Base context, it only
provides basic Req/Resp/Data features.
This PR mainly moves code. There are still many legacy problems and
TODOs in code, leave unrelated changes to future PRs.
wxiaoguang
Nicolas
Myers Carpenter
Lunny Xiao
Louis
Dawid Góra
Kemal Zebari
ChristopherHX
bytedream
YaFou
Thomas E Lackey
6543
Calvin K
Tim
Zettat123
Henry Goodman
Denys Konovalov
Jimmy Praet
Chris Copeland
Adam Majer
Dmitry Sharshakov
puni9869
Earl Warren
谈笑风生间