Fix https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/21666
Caused by https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/19663
Before: when install, the INTERNAL_TOKEN was always generated and saved.
But the internal token may be already there by INTERNAL_TOKEN_URI
After: INTERNAL_TOKEN_URI file must be non-empty. When install, skip
internal token generation if the token exists.
_This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting
some parts, see below_
## Context
In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication.
The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a
given token. For instance:
- Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the
header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872)
- TeamCity #18667
- Gitea instances #20267
- SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this
is my actual personal need :)
## Proposed solution
Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing
it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all
present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307).
This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872.
As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and
improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple
`Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and
`Basic` switches):
The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase
justifying otherwise.
## Questions
- What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind
- ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new
file, or is there a command for that?~~
- ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I
drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~
## Done as well:
- add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the
`Authorization` logic there
_Closes #19872_
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
A patch to #17335.
Just like AppPath, Gitea writes its own CustomConf into git hook scripts
too. If Gitea's CustomConf changes, then the git push may fail.
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
This patch provide a mechanism to disable
[sitemap](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/18407).
Signed-off-by: Xinyu Zhou <i@sourcehut.net>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Fixes an 500 error/panic if using the changed PR files API with pages
that should return empty lists because there are no items anymore.
`start-end` is then < 0 which ends in panic.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
I noticed an admin is not allowed to upload packages for other users
because `ctx.IsSigned` was not set.
I added a check for `user.IsActive` and `user.ProhibitLogin` too because
both was not checked. Tests enforce this now.
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
The OAuth spec [defines two types of
client](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-2.1),
confidential and public. Previously Gitea assumed all clients to be
confidential.
> OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to authenticate
securely with the authorization server (i.e., ability to
> maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
>
> confidential
> Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., client implemented on a secure server with
> restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
>
> **public
> Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., clients executing on the device used by the resource
owner, such as an installed native application or a web browser-based
application), and incapable of secure client authentication via any
other means.**
>
> The client type designation is based on the authorization server's
definition of secure authentication and its acceptable exposure levels
of client credentials. The authorization server SHOULD NOT make
assumptions about the client type.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.4
> Authorization servers MUST record the client type in the client
registration details in order to identify and process requests
accordingly.
Require PKCE for public clients:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.1
> Authorization servers SHOULD reject authorization requests from native
apps that don't use PKCE by returning an error message
Fixes#21299
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This stype name is also used in many repos, example:
[``README_ZH.md``](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/README_ZH.md)
Signed-off-by: a1012112796 <1012112796@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
According to the OAuth spec
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-6 when "Refreshing
an Access Token"
> The authorization server MUST ... require client authentication for
confidential clients
Fixes#21418
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Previously mentioning a user would link to its profile, regardless of
whether the user existed. This change tests if the user exists and only
if it does - a link to its profile is added.
* Fixes#3444
Signed-off-by: Yarden Shoham <hrsi88@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This prevents a 500 response, because null pointer exceptions in
rendering the template.
This happends bc the repoId is not in the repoMap because it is delete
fix#19076
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
At the moment, If admin disable Packages, still show the Packages on the
admin dashboard
This patch added a check to hide the Packages entry
Signed-off-by: baronbunny <its@baronbunny.cn>
Signed-off-by: baronbunny <its@baronbunny.cn>
At the moment a repository reference is needed for webhooks. With the
upcoming package PR we need to send webhooks without a repository
reference. For example a package is uploaded to an organization. In
theory this enables the usage of webhooks for future user actions.
This PR removes the repository id from `HookTask` and changes how the
hooks are processed (see `services/webhook/deliver.go`). In a follow up
PR I want to remove the usage of the `UniqueQueue´ and replace it with a
normal queue because there is no reason to be unique.
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
depends on #18871
Added some api integration tests to help testing of #18798.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
Anthony Wang
