This PR follows #21535 (and replace #22592)
## Review without space diff
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22678/files?diff=split&w=1
## Purpose of this PR
1. Make git module command completely safe (risky user inputs won't be
passed as argument option anymore)
2. Avoid low-level mistakes like
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22098#discussion_r1045234918
3. Remove deprecated and dirty `CmdArgCheck` function, hide the `CmdArg`
type
4. Simplify code when using git command
## The main idea of this PR
* Move the `git.CmdArg` to the `internal` package, then no other package
except `git` could use it. Then developers could never do
`AddArguments(git.CmdArg(userInput))` any more.
* Introduce `git.ToTrustedCmdArgs`, it's for user-provided and already
trusted arguments. It's only used in a few cases, for example: use git
arguments from config file, help unit test with some arguments.
* Introduce `AddOptionValues` and `AddOptionFormat`, they make code more
clear and simple:
* Before: `AddArguments("-m").AddDynamicArguments(message)`
* After: `AddOptionValues("-m", message)`
* -
* Before: `AddArguments(git.CmdArg(fmt.Sprintf("--author='%s <%s>'",
sig.Name, sig.Email)))`
* After: `AddOptionFormat("--author='%s <%s>'", sig.Name, sig.Email)`
## FAQ
### Why these changes were not done in #21535 ?
#21535 is mainly a search&replace, it did its best to not change too
much logic.
Making the framework better needs a lot of changes, so this separate PR
is needed as the second step.
### The naming of `AddOptionXxx`
According to git's manual, the `--xxx` part is called `option`.
### How can it guarantee that `internal.CmdArg` won't be not misused?
Go's specification guarantees that. Trying to access other package's
internal package causes compilation error.
And, `golangci-lint` also denies the git/internal package. Only the
`git/command.go` can use it carefully.
### There is still a `ToTrustedCmdArgs`, will it still allow developers
to make mistakes and pass untrusted arguments?
Generally speaking, no. Because when using `ToTrustedCmdArgs`, the code
will be very complex (see the changes for examples). Then developers and
reviewers can know that something might be unreasonable.
### Why there was a `CmdArgCheck` and why it's removed?
At the moment of #21535, to reduce unnecessary changes, `CmdArgCheck`
was introduced as a hacky patch. Now, almost all code could be written
as `cmd := NewCommand(); cmd.AddXxx(...)`, then there is no need for
`CmdArgCheck` anymore.
### Why many codes for `signArg == ""` is deleted?
Because in the old code, `signArg` could never be empty string, it's
either `-S[key-id]` or `--no-gpg-sign`. So the `signArg == ""` is just
dead code.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
There are 2 separate flows of creating a user: authentication and source
sync.
When a group filter is defined, source sync ignores group filter, while
authentication respects it.
With this PR I've fixed this behavior, so both flows now apply this
filter when searching users in LDAP in a unified way.
- Unified LDAP group membership lookup for authentication and source
sync flows
- Replaced custom group membership lookup (used for authentication flow)
with an existing listLdapGroupMemberships method (used for source sync
flow)
- Modified listLdapGroupMemberships and getUserAttributeListedInGroup in
a way group lookup could be called separately
- Added user filtering based on a group membership for a source sync
- Added tests to cover this logic
Co-authored-by: Pavel Ezhov <paejov@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This PR adds the support for scopes of access tokens, mimicking the
design of GitHub OAuth scopes.
The changes of the core logic are in `models/auth` that `AccessToken`
struct will have a `Scope` field. The normalized (no duplication of
scope), comma-separated scope string will be stored in `access_token`
table in the database.
In `services/auth`, the scope will be stored in context, which will be
used by `reqToken` middleware in API calls. Only OAuth2 tokens will have
granular token scopes, while others like BasicAuth will default to scope
`all`.
A large amount of work happens in `routers/api/v1/api.go` and the
corresponding `tests/integration` tests, that is adding necessary scopes
to each of the API calls as they fit.
- [x] Add `Scope` field to `AccessToken`
- [x] Add access control to all API endpoints
- [x] Update frontend & backend for when creating tokens
- [x] Add a database migration for `scope` column (enable 'all' access
to past tokens)
I'm aiming to complete it before Gitea 1.19 release.
Fixes#4300
This PR introduce glob match for protected branch name. The separator is
`/` and you can use `*` matching non-separator chars and use `**` across
separator.
It also supports input an exist or non-exist branch name as matching
condition and branch name condition has high priority than glob rule.
Should fix#2529 and #15705
screenshots
<img width="1160" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/81045/205651179-ebb5492a-4ade-4bb4-a13c-965e8c927063.png">
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
closes#13585fixes#9067fixes#2386
ref #6226
ref #6219fixes#745
This PR adds support to process incoming emails to perform actions.
Currently I added handling of replies and unsubscribing from
issues/pulls. In contrast to #13585 the IMAP IDLE command is used
instead of polling which results (in my opinion 😉) in cleaner code.
Procedure:
- When sending an issue/pull reply email, a token is generated which is
present in the Reply-To and References header.
- IMAP IDLE waits until a new email arrives
- The token tells which action should be performed
A possible signature and/or reply gets stripped from the content.
I added a new service to the drone pipeline to test the receiving of
incoming mails. If we keep this in, we may test our outgoing emails too
in future.
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
- Move the file `compare.go` and `slice.go` to `slice.go`.
- Fix `ExistsInSlice`, it's buggy
- It uses `sort.Search`, so it assumes that the input slice is sorted.
- It passes `func(i int) bool { return slice[i] == target })` to
`sort.Search`, that's incorrect, check the doc of `sort.Search`.
- Conbine `IsInt64InSlice(int64, []int64)` and `ExistsInSlice(string,
[]string)` to `SliceContains[T]([]T, T)`.
- Conbine `IsSliceInt64Eq([]int64, []int64)` and `IsEqualSlice([]string,
[]string)` to `SliceSortedEqual[T]([]T, T)`.
- Add `SliceEqual[T]([]T, T)` as a distinction from
`SliceSortedEqual[T]([]T, T)`.
- Redesign `RemoveIDFromList([]int64, int64) ([]int64, bool)` to
`SliceRemoveAll[T]([]T, T) []T`.
- Add `SliceContainsFunc[T]([]T, func(T) bool)` and
`SliceRemoveAllFunc[T]([]T, func(T) bool)` for general use.
- Add comments to explain why not `golang.org/x/exp/slices`.
- Add unit tests.
After #22362, we can feel free to use transactions without
`db.DefaultContext`.
And there are still lots of models using `db.DefaultContext`, I think we
should refactor them carefully and one by one.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
There are repeated failures with this test which appear related to
failures in getTokenForLoggedInUser. It is difficult to further evaluate
the cause of these failures as we do not get given further information.
This PR will attempt to fix this.
First it adds some extra logging and it uses the csrf cookie primarily
for the csrf value.
If the problem does not occur again with those changes we could merge,
assume that it is fixed and hope that if it occurs in future the
additional logging will be helpful.
If not I will add more changes in attempt to fix.
Fix#22105
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- There have been [CI
failures](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/111) in this
specific test function. The code on itself looks good, the CI failures
are likely caused by not specifying any field in `TeamUser`, which might
have caused to unittest to return another `TeamUser` than the code
expects.
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
DmitryFrolovTri
truecode112
KN4CK3RandGitHub
JakobDevandGitHub
Chongyi ZhengandGitHub
Jason SongandGitHub
NickandGitHub
