before: gitrepo vs git packages
after: git package fully handle all git operations
by the way, use `WithRepo(repo)` instead of `WithDir(repo.Path)` to hide
path details.
benefits:
1. remove all unnecessary wrappers, developers no need to struggle with
"which package should be used"
2. simplify code, RepositoryFacade can (will) be used everywhere, all
"path" details are (will be) hidden
- Enforce org visibility on organization label read endpoints (private
org labels no longer leak to non-members).
- Block fork sync (`merge-upstream`) when the base repo is no longer
readable (stops pulling commits after a parent goes private).
- Remove `REVERSE_PROXY_LIMIT` / `REVERSE_PROXY_TRUSTED_PROXIES` from
the Docker `app.ini` templates (the `= *` default allowed
`X-WEBAUTH-USER` impersonation; reverse-proxy auth is now opt-in and
admin-configured).
- Enforce single-use TOTP passcodes across web login, password-reset,
and Basic-Auth `X-Gitea-OTP` (fixes a TOCTOU race and a stateless
replay).
- Re-check branch write permission for every ref in a push (the
pre-receive hook cached the first ref's result, letting a per-branch
maintainer-edit grant escalate to full repo write).
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
The GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/branches endpoint currently has no way to
filter branches by name server-side, forcing API consumers to paginate
through all branches and filter client-side.
The UI already supports branch search (added in
[#27055](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27055)). The underlying
DB layer has a Keyword field on FindBranchOptions in
models/git/branch_list.go that does a LIKE %keyword% SQL filter, it just
wasn't wired up to the API handler.
This PR exposes a ?q= query parameter on the endpoint that maps to
FindBranchOptions.Keyword.
Example:
```GET /repos/owner/repo/branches?q=feature ```
Closes#37981
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
- Introduce a “Bypass Protection Allowlist” on branch rules
(users/teams) alongside admins, with BlockAdminMergeOverride
still respected.
- Surface the allowlist in API (create/edit options, structs) and
settings UI; merge box now shows the red button +
message for bypass-capable users.
- Apply bypass logic to merge checks and pre-receive so allowlisted
users can override unmet approvals/status checks/
protected files when force-merging.
- Add migration for new columns, locale strings, and unit tests (bypass
helper; queue test tweak).
<img width="1069" height="218" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0b61bc2a-a27f-47f3-a923-613688008e65"
/>
Fixes#36476
---------
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Codex GPT-5.3 <codex@openai.com>
Co-authored-by: GPT-5.2 <noreply@openai.com>
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The `Repository` struct in `services/context/repo.go` embedded
`access_model.Permission` anonymously, causing all permission methods to
be promoted directly onto `Repository`. This made it unclear at call
sites whether a method belonged to `Repository` itself or to its
embedded `Permission`.
### Changes
- **`services/context/repo.go`**: Replace anonymous
`access_model.Permission` with named field `Permission
access_model.Permission`
- **49 files** updated to route permission method calls through the
named field:
```go
// Before
ctx.Repo.IsAdmin()
ctx.Repo.CanWrite(unit.TypeCode)
ctx.Repo.CanReadIssuesOrPulls(isPull)
slices.ContainsFunc(unitTypes, ctx.Repo.CanWrite)
// After
ctx.Repo.Permission.IsAdmin()
ctx.Repo.Permission.CanWrite(unit.TypeCode)
ctx.Repo.Permission.CanReadIssuesOrPulls(isPull)
slices.ContainsFunc(unitTypes, ctx.Repo.Permission.CanWrite)
```
Methods defined directly on `*Repository` (`CanWriteToBranch`,
`CanCreateBranch`, etc.) are unchanged.
---------
Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <2114189+wxiaoguang@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicolas <bircni@icloud.com>
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>
Resolves#36381 by only allowing admins to perform branch renames that
match to branch protection rules.
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
enable nolintlint scope requirement
add comments to new directives so it's more obvious why they are in
place
---
I can also toggle the mandatory comments on if that's something of
interest.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
The merge-upstream route was so far performing any kind of merge, even
those that would create merge commits and thus make your branch diverge
from upstream, requiring manual intervention via the git cli to undo the
damage.
With the new optional parameter ff_only, we can instruct gitea to error
out, if a non-fast-forward merge would be performed.
Currently, anyone with write permissions to a repo are able to rename
default or protected branches.
This change follows
[GitHub's](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-branches-in-your-repository/renaming-a-branch)
design by only allowing repo/site admins to change these branches.
However, it also follows are current design for protected branches and
only allows admins to modify branch names == branch protection rule
names. Glob-based rules cannot be renamed by anyone (as was already the
case, but we now catch `ErrBranchIsProtected` which we previously did
not catch, throwing a 500).
Resolve#32341
~Depends on #27151~
- [x] It will display a checkbox of deleting the head branch on the pull
request view page when starting an auto-merge task.
- [x] Add permission check before deleting the branch
- [x] Add delete branch comment for those closing pull requests because
of head branch or base branch was deleted.
- [x] Merge `RetargetChildrenOnMerge` and `AddDeletePRBranchComment`
into `service.DeleteBranch`.
In history (from some legacy frameworks), both `:name` and `name` are
supported as path path name, `:name` is an alias to `name`.
To make code consistent, now we should only use `name` but not `:name`.
Also added panic check in related functions to make sure the name won't
be abused in case some downstreams still use them.
Introduce RequestContext: is a short-lived context that is used to store
request-specific data.
RequestContext could be used to clean form tmp files, close context git
repo, and do some tracing in the future.
Then a lot of legacy code could be removed or improved. For example:
most `ctx.Repo.GitRepo.Close()` could be removed because the git repo
could be closed when the request is done.
## 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*
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 only does "renaming":
* `Route` should be `Router` (and chi router is also called "router")
* `Params` should be `PathParam` (to distingush it from URL query param, and to match `FormString`)
* Use lower case for private functions to avoid exposing or abusing
Add some logic in `convert.ToBranchProtection` to return only the names
associated with readAccess instead of returning all names. This will
ensure consistency in behavior between the frontend and backend.
Fixes: #27694
---------
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.com>
Co-authored-by: wenzhuo.zhang <wenzhuo.zhang@geely.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
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
## Purpose
This is a refactor toward building an abstraction over managing git
repositories.
Afterwards, it does not matter anymore if they are stored on the local
disk or somewhere remote.
## What this PR changes
We used `git.OpenRepository` everywhere previously.
Now, we should split them into two distinct functions:
Firstly, there are temporary repositories which do not change:
```go
git.OpenRepository(ctx, diskPath)
```
Gitea managed repositories having a record in the database in the
`repository` table are moved into the new package `gitrepo`:
```go
gitrepo.OpenRepository(ctx, repo_model.Repo)
```
Why is `repo_model.Repository` the second parameter instead of file
path?
Because then we can easily adapt our repository storage strategy.
The repositories can be stored locally, however, they could just as well
be stored on a remote server.
## Further changes in other PRs
- A Git Command wrapper on package `gitrepo` could be created. i.e.
`NewCommand(ctx, repo_model.Repository, commands...)`. `git.RunOpts{Dir:
repo.RepoPath()}`, the directory should be empty before invoking this
method and it can be filled in the function only. #28940
- Remove the `RepoPath()`/`WikiPath()` functions to reduce the
possibility of mistakes.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
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>
Fix#28056
This PR will check whether the repo has zero branch when pushing a
branch. If that, it means this repository hasn't been synced.
The reason caused that is after user upgrade from v1.20 -> v1.21, he
just push branches without visit the repository user interface. Because
all repositories routers will check whether a branches sync is necessary
but push has not such check.
For every repository, it has two states, synced or not synced. If there
is zero branch for a repository, then it will be assumed as non-sync
state. Otherwise, it's synced state. So if we think it's synced, we just
need to update branch/insert new branch. Otherwise do a full sync. So
that, for every push, there will be almost no extra load added. It's
high performance than yours.
For the implementation, we in fact will try to update the branch first,
if updated success with affect records > 0, then all are done. Because
that means the branch has been in the database. If no record is
affected, that means the branch does not exist in database. So there are
two possibilities. One is this is a new branch, then we just need to
insert the record. Another is the branches haven't been synced, then we
need to sync all the branches into database.
Dominique Hummel