[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- The `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{index}/dependencies` APIs allow a user to link an issue in one repository as "depending upon" an issue in another repository. Forgejo's implementation had an incorrect permission check which would verify only that the user had write permissions on the issue being modified, and not on the issue it was linking to. Due to the incorrect permission check, it was possible to view limited information (the existence of, and title of) an issue in a private repository that the user does not have access to view. The permission check has been corrected to take into account visibility of the remote repository.
[CVSS 5.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Fetching information about a release via the `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/releases/tag/{tag}` API endpoint did not check whether the release was a draft, allowing accessing to information about a draft release to users who could predict an upcoming release tag but didn't have access to view it. The missing check has been added, returning a 404 response when the release is not published.
[CVSS 6.3 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- Forgejo's web interface allows deleting tags on a git repository through a form post. The endpoint for this form post had misconfigured middleware handlers which enforce security rights, allowing an anonymous user, or a logged-in user without the correct permissions, to delete tags on repositories that they did not own by injecting arbitrary internal tag identifiers into the form. The middleware handler configuration has been corrected.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When the head branch of a pull request matches a branch protection rule, the head branch should be able to be merged or rebased only according to the "Push" rules defined in the protection rule. An implementation error checked those branch protection rules in the context of the base repository rather than the head repository, allowing users with write access to the base repository to be considered able to push to the branch, bypassing the "Enable push" option's expected security control.
[CVSS 2.1 Low](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- An issue owner can manipulate form inputs to delete the content history of comments they did not create, as long as those comments are on issues that they own. Although comment content is not affected, the history of edits on the comment can be trimmed. The validation in the form handler was corrected.
[CVSS 5.1 Medium](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4-0#CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N) -- When a repository is configured with tag protection rules, it should not be possible for a user that is outside the whitelisted users or teams from modifying the protected tags. An incorrect parameter being passed to a security verification method allowed a user with write access to the repo to delete tags even if they were protected, as long as the tag was originally created by a user who is still authorized by the protection rules.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Security bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGZpeCBkZXBlbmRlbmN5IHJlcG8gcGVybXMgaW4gQ3JlYXRlL1JlbW92ZUlzc3VlRGVwZW5kZW5jeQ==-->fix(api): fix dependency repo perms in Create/RemoveIssueDependency<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 1 --><!--description Zml4KGFwaSk6IGRyYWZ0IHJlbGVhc2VzIGNvdWxkIGJlIHJlYWQgYmVmb3JlIGJlaW5nIHB1Ymxpc2hlZA==-->fix(api): draft releases could be read before being published<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 2 --><!--description bWlzY29uZmlndXJlZCBzZWN1cml0eSBjaGVja3Mgb24gdGFnIGRlbGV0ZSB3ZWIgZm9ybQ==-->misconfigured security checks on tag delete web form<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 3 --><!--description aW5jb3JyZWN0IGxvZ2ljIGluICJVcGRhdGUgUFIiIGRpZCBub3QgZW5mb3JjZSBoZWFkIGJyYW5jaCBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIHJ1bGVzIGNvcnJlY3RseQ==-->incorrect logic in "Update PR" did not enforce head branch protection rules correctly<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 4 --><!--description aXNzdWUgb3duZXIgY2FuIGRlbGV0ZSBhbm90aGVyIHVzZXIncyBjb21tZW50J3MgZWRpdCBoaXN0b3J5IG9uIHNhbWUgaXNzdWU=-->issue owner can delete another user's comment's edit history on same issue<!--description-->
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037): <!--number 10037 --><!--line 5 --><!--description dGFnIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gcnVsZXMgY2FuIGJlIGJ5cGFzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0YWcgZGVsZXRlIG9wZXJhdGlvbg==-->tag protection rules can be bypassed during tag delete operation<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Co-authored-by: Joshua Rogers <MegaManSec@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10037
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
The `repository` table has quite a few "count of related objects" fields on it, including the number of issues, closed issues, pull requests, and closed pull requests. These fields specifically will cause deadlocks during concurrent PR merges as documented in #9785.
These fields are not used in database queries. In order to eliminate the deadlock possibility on them, I've moved them to be calculated on-demand with caching, with the cache being invalidated in the same places that the recalc used to be triggered.
I've supplemented the already in-place automated testing with manual testing performing simple close & reopen of issues & PRs, and the counts which are used in the tabs at the top of the repo page are updated correctly as expected.
Near future work:
- Similar change can probably be performed to fix#9846
- Last known deadlock identified from #9785; I'm hoping to incorporate the synthetic deadlock test in a near future PR to prevent regressions
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- Tests were already in-place covering these fields; they've been adjusted from using the fields to the new accessor methods.
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Bug fixes
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9922): <!--number 9922 --><!--line 0 --><!--description cmVkdWNlIGRlYWRsb2NrcyBtZXJnaW5nIFBScyBieSB1c2luZyBjYWNoaW5nIGZvciByZXBvIGlzc3VlIGNvdW50IHN0YXRz-->reduce deadlocks merging PRs by using caching for repo issue count stats<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9922
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Continuing the pattern from #9868, fixes another deadlock discovered in synthetic testing of #9785. This modifies the `milestone` table to have the `num_issues`, `num_closed_issues`, and `completeness` statistics be calculated asynchronously.
An optional `updateTimestamp` field was added to the stats queue to support the conditional updating of the milestone's modification date, retaining existing functionality.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9916
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- When the issue unit is disabled for a repository, don't allow issue related APIs.
- Added integration tests.
- Resolves#8408
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8829
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: zokki <zokki.softwareschmiede@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: zokki <zokki.softwareschmiede@gmail.com>
Port of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/32204
(cherry picked from commit d6d3c96e6555fc91b3e2ef21f4d8d7475564bb3e)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/api.go
services/context/api.go
trivial context conflicts
The PATCH if issue & pull request switched to use the service
functions instead. However, the service function changing the state is
not idempotent. Instead of doing nothing which changing from open to
open or close to close, it will fail with an error like:
Issue [2472] 0 was already closed
Regression of: 6a4bc0289d
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/4686
Fix#30807
reuse functions in services
(cherry picked from commit a50026e2f30897904704895362da0fb12c7e5b26)
Conflicts:
models/issues/issue_update.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue.go
trivial context conflict because of 'allow setting the update date on issues and comments'
Fix#14459
The following users can add/remove review requests of a PR
- the poster of the PR
- the owner or collaborators of the repository
- members with read permission on the pull requests unit
(cherry picked from commit c42083a33950be6ee9f822c6d0de3c3a79d1f51b)
Conflicts:
models/repo/repo_list_test.go
tests/integration/api_nodeinfo_test.go
tests/integration/api_repo_test.go
shared fixture counts
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
(cherry picked from commit 47c78927d6)
(cherry picked from commit 2030f3b965)
(cherry picked from commit f02aeb7698)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_attachment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1575
(cherry picked from commit d072525b35)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3d)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec7)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) apply the 'update_at' value to the cross-ref comments (#1676)
[this is a follow-up to PR #764]
When a comment of issue A referencing issue B is added with a forced 'updated_at' date, that date has to be applied to the comment created in issue B.
-----
Comment:
While trying my 'RoundUp migration script', I found that this case was forgotten in PR #764 - my apologies...
I'll try to write a functional test, base on models/issues/issue_xref_test.go
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1676
Co-authored-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
Co-committed-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
(cherry picked from commit ac4f727f63)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9)
(cherry picked from commit 77ba6be1da)
(cherry picked from commit 9c8337b5c4)
(cherry picked from commit 1d689eb686)
(cherry picked from commit 511c519c87)
(cherry picked from commit 2f0b4a8f61)
(cherry picked from commit fdd4da111c)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) do not use token= query param
See 33439b733a
(cherry picked from commit c5139a75b9)
(cherry picked from commit c7b572c35d)
(cherry picked from commit aec7503ff6)
(cherry picked from commit 87c65f2a49)
(cherry picked from commit bd47ee33c2)
(cherry picked from commit f3dbd90a74)
1. The old `prepareQueryArg` did double-unescaping of form value.
2. By the way, remove the unnecessary `ctx.Flash = ...` in
`MockContext`.
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
## Changes
- Adds the following high level access scopes, each with `read` and
`write` levels:
- `activitypub`
- `admin` (hidden if user is not a site admin)
- `misc`
- `notification`
- `organization`
- `package`
- `issue`
- `repository`
- `user`
- Adds new middleware function `tokenRequiresScopes()` in addition to
`reqToken()`
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` is used for each high-level api section
- _if_ a scoped token is present, checks that the required scope is
included based on the section and HTTP method
- `reqToken()` is used for individual routes
- checks that required authentication is present (but does not check
scope levels as this will already have been handled by
`tokenRequiresScopes()`
- Adds migration to convert old scoped access tokens to the new set of
scopes
- Updates the user interface for scope selection
### User interface example
<img width="903" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 55 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/654766ec-2143-4f59-9037-3b51600e32f3">
<img width="917" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 43 PM"
src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/1ad64081-012c-4a73-b393-66b30352654c">
## tokenRequiresScopes Design Decision
- `tokenRequiresScopes()` was added to more reliably cover api routes.
For an incoming request, this function uses the given scope category
(say `AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization`) and the HTTP method (say
`DELETE`) and verifies that any scoped tokens in use include
`delete:organization`.
- `reqToken()` is used to enforce auth for individual routes that
require it. If a scoped token is not present for a request,
`tokenRequiresScopes()` will not return an error
## TODO
- [x] Alphabetize scope categories
- [x] Change 'public repos only' to a radio button (private vs public).
Also expand this to organizations
- [X] Disable token creation if no scopes selected. Alternatively, show
warning
- [x] `reqToken()` is missing from many `POST/DELETE` routes in the api.
`tokenRequiresScopes()` only checks that a given token has the correct
scope, `reqToken()` must be used to check that a token (or some other
auth) is present.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] The migration should be reviewed very carefully in order to
minimize access changes to existing user tokens.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- [x] Link to api to swagger documentation, clarify what
read/write/delete levels correspond to
- [x] Review cases where more than one scope is needed as this directly
deviates from the api definition.
- _This should be addressed in this PR_
- For example:
```go
m.Group("/users/{username}/orgs", func() {
m.Get("", reqToken(), org.ListUserOrgs)
m.Get("/{org}/permissions", reqToken(), org.GetUserOrgsPermissions)
}, tokenRequiresScopes(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser,
auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization),
context_service.UserAssignmentAPI())
```
## Future improvements
- [ ] Add required scopes to swagger documentation
- [ ] Redesign `reqToken()` to be opt-out rather than opt-in
- [ ] Subdivide scopes like `repository`
- [ ] Once a token is created, if it has no scopes, we should display
text instead of an empty bullet point
- [ ] If the 'public repos only' option is selected, should read
categories be selected by default
Closes#24501Closes#24799
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jon@allspice.io>
Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Add a new "exclusive" option per label. This makes it so that when the
label is named `scope/name`, no other label with the same `scope/`
prefix can be set on an issue.
The scope is determined by the last occurence of `/`, so for example
`scope/alpha/name` and `scope/beta/name` are considered to be in
different scopes and can coexist.
Exclusive scopes are not enforced by any database rules, however they
are enforced when editing labels at the models level, automatically
removing any existing labels in the same scope when either attaching a
new label or replacing all labels.
In menus use a circle instead of checkbox to indicate they function as
radio buttons per scope. Issue filtering by label ensures that only a
single scoped label is selected at a time. Clicking with alt key can be
used to remove a scoped label, both when editing individual issues and
batch editing.
Label rendering refactor for consistency and code simplification:
* Labels now consistently have the same shape, emojis and tooltips
everywhere. This includes the label list and label assignment menus.
* In label list, show description below label same as label menus.
* Don't use exactly black/white text colors to look a bit nicer.
* Simplify text color computation. There is no point computing luminance
in linear color space, as this is a perceptual problem and sRGB is
closer to perceptually linear.
* Increase height of label assignment menus to show more labels. Showing
only 3-4 labels at a time leads to a lot of scrolling.
* Render all labels with a new RenderLabel template helper function.
Label creation and editing in multiline modal menu:
* Change label creation to open a modal menu like label editing.
* Change menu layout to place name, description and colors on separate
lines.
* Don't color cancel button red in label editing modal menu.
* Align text to the left in model menu for better readability and
consistent with settings layout elsewhere.
Custom exclusive scoped label rendering:
* Display scoped label prefix and suffix with slightly darker and
lighter background color respectively, and a slanted edge between them
similar to the `/` symbol.
* In menus exclusive labels are grouped with a divider line.
---------
Co-authored-by: Yarden Shoham <hrsi88@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
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
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>
