A `workflow_dispatch` job that has `needs:` **and** an `if:` comparing a
boolean
input against a boolean literal never runs — it stays `Blocked` forever
even
though its needs succeed. Minimal repro:
```yaml
on:
workflow_dispatch:
inputs:
deploy:
type: boolean
default: true
jobs:
build:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps: [{ run: echo build }]
deploy:
needs: build
if: ${{ inputs.deploy == true }} # never true on Gitea
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps: [{ run: echo deploy }]
```
On GitHub this runs; on Gitea `deploy` is stuck. Jobs **without**
`needs` are
unaffected, which makes it look like a matrix/`needs` bug — it isn't.
## Root cause
`workflow_dispatch` stores boolean inputs as the strings
`"true"`/`"false"`
(`ctx.FormBool` → `strconv.FormatBool` in the web path, plain strings in
the API
path). Since #37478 (shipped in **v1.27.0**), `evaluateJobIf` runs
**server-side**
as part of the job-emitter resolver passes. For a `needs`-gated job the
server
therefore evaluates `inputs.deploy == true` with `inputs.deploy` being
the string
`"true"`; comparing a string to a boolean coerces to `NaN == 1` →
`false`, so the
job is never dispatched.
Jobs without `needs` skip this server-side gate and are evaluated by the
runner,
which coerces the string to a real bool — that's why they keep working,
and why
the same input yields opposite results in the two paths.
## Fix
Normalize `type: boolean` dispatch inputs to native JSON booleans in the
shared
`DispatchActionWorkflow` path, so it covers both the web and API entry
points in
one place. The coerced value flows into both the run's `EventPayload`
(read back
by the server-side `if` evaluation and by the runner) and the
creation-time
parse, so all consumers agree.
This matches GitHub, whose `inputs` context "preserves Boolean values as
Booleans
instead of converting them to strings", and mirrors the native JSON
types Gitea
already sends for `workflow_call`. Only booleans are coerced; other
input types
are left untouched, and a value that is already a bool (JSON API
request) passes
through.
Note: this makes dispatch payloads carry native booleans, which the
runner
consumes correctly as of gitea/runner#1087 (it accepts a native bool and
keeps
the string fallback) — the same expectation `workflow_call` already
relies on.
Fixes https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/38466
Follow #38237#38237 posts "skipped" commit statuses for every workflow that is not
triggered due to a filter (e.g. `paths` or `branches`) mismatch.
However, for non-required workflows, creating "skipped" commit statuses
for them would generate a lot of noise.
To address this issue, this PR adds a check before creating commit
status:
- For the context that matches any required status check patterns, a
"skipped" commit status will be created. The `Required` label can inform
users that this status check is required, but has been skipped because
of a filter mismatch.
- For a non-required context, nothing will be created.
NOTE: Reducing noise is a best-effort approach and isn't entirely
accurate. When creating commit statuses, it is impossible to predict
which branch protection rule will take effect. Therefore, we have to
compare the commit status context against the required patterns from all
rules. If any rule matches, the context is considered "required".
## Summary
Two Gitea Actions workflow files that share the same `name:` and same
job name produced identical commit-status `Context` strings. Because
`GetLatestCommitStatus` groups by `context_hash` (derived from
`Context`), only one row was shown on the PR page — see #35699.
GitHub displays both rows even though they look identical. This change
does the same: the displayed `Context` is unchanged, but `ContextHash`
now mixes in the workflow file path so the two statuses remain distinct
in the dedupe query.
## Notes
- Workflows that omit `name:` now use the workflow file name in the
`Context` (e.g. `ci.yaml / build (push)`) instead of an empty `/ build
(push)`. This changes the `Context` string for unnamed workflows, so any
required-status-check rule that referenced the old string must be
updated after upgrade.
- For statuses created before this change (hashed from `Context` alone),
`createCommitStatus` reuses that legacy hash when a matching row is
still present, so in-flight pending statuses are superseded rather than
orphaned on upgrade.
Fixes#35699
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
## Summary
Fixes#37528
This PR makes the workflow dispatch API reject workflows that do not
declare `workflow_dispatch`. Previously, `POST
/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/workflows/{workflow_id}/dispatches` could
create an `ActionRun` for a workflow that only declared another event
such as `push`.
The service now validates that the target workflow has a
`workflow_dispatch` trigger before inserting the run. The API maps that
validation failure to `422 Unprocessable Entity`, matching existing
validation failures in this handler.
The regression test creates a push-only workflow, dispatches it through
the public API, asserts the `workflow_dispatch` validation message, and
verifies that no run was inserted.
## Disclosure
Developed with assistance from OpenAI Codex.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nicolas <bircni@icloud.com>
1. Fix ugly commit form "warning" message
2. Use JSONError for "Update PR Branch" response
3. Remove useless "timeline" class
4. Make timeline review default to "comment" to avoid icon missing
5. Align PR's "command line instructions" UI
6. Simply "Update PR branch" button logic
And then some TODOs are fixed.
---------
Signed-off-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Workflows triggered by pull_request_review events (approved, rejected,
comment) complete successfully but never create a commit status on the
PR. This makes them invisible in the merge checks UI, breaking any CI
gate that re-evaluates on review submission.
The commit status handler's switch statement was missing the three
review event types, so they fell through to the default case which
returned empty strings. Additionally, review events use
PullRequestPayload but IsPullRequest() returns false for them (Event()
returns "pull_request_approved" etc. instead of "pull_request"), so
GetPullRequestEventPayload() refuses to parse their payload.
Signed-off-by: Jörg Thalheim <joerg@thalheim.io>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Partially fix#34710
The bug described in #34710 can be divided into two parts: `push.paths`
and `pull_request.paths`. This PR fixes the issue related to
`pull_request.paths`. The root cause is that the check for whether the
workflow can be triggered happens **before** updating the PR’s merge
base. This causes the file-change detection to use the old merge base.
Therefore, we need to update the merge base first and then check whether
the workflow can be triggered.
Extract from #34531
## Move Commit status state to a standalone package
Move the state from `structs` to `commitstatus` package. It also
introduce `CommitStatusStates` so that the combine function could be
used from UI and API logic.
## Combined commit status Changed
This PR will follow Github's combined commit status. Before this PR,
every commit status could be a combined one.
According to
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVersion=2022-11-28#get-the-combined-status-for-a-specific-reference
> Additionally, a combined state is returned. The state is one of:
> failure if any of the contexts report as error or failure
> pending if there are no statuses or a context is pending
> success if the latest status for all contexts is success
This PR will follow that rule and remove the `NoBetterThan` logic. This
also fixes the inconsistent between UI and API. In the API convert
package, it has implemented this which is different from the UI. It also
fixed the missing `URL` and `CommitURL` in the API.
## `CalcCommitStatus` return nil if there is no commit statuses
The behavior of `CalcCommitStatus` is changed. If the parameter commit
statuses is empty, it will return nil. The reference places should check
the returned value themselves.
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`.
Fix#28157
This PR fix the possible bugs about actions schedule.
## The Changes
- Move `UpdateRepositoryUnit` and `SetRepoDefaultBranch` from models to
service layer
- Remove schedules plan from database and cancel waiting & running
schedules tasks in this repository when actions unit has been disabled
or global disabled.
- Remove schedules plan from database and cancel waiting & running
schedules tasks in this repository when default branch changed.
Follow #25229
Copy from
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/26290#issuecomment-1663135186
The bug is that we cannot get changed files for the
`pull_request_target` event. This event runs in the context of the base
branch, so we won't get any changes if we call
`GetFilesChangedSinceCommit` with `PullRequest.Base.Ref`.
Before: the concept "Content string" is used everywhere. It has some
problems:
1. Sometimes it means "base64 encoded content", sometimes it means "raw
binary content"
2. It doesn't work with large files, eg: uploading a 1G LFS file would
make Gitea process OOM
This PR does the refactoring: use "ContentReader" / "ContentBase64"
instead of "Content"
This PR is not breaking because the key in API JSON is still "content":
`` ContentBase64 string `json:"content"` ``
Follow #25229
At present, when the trigger event is `pull_request_target`, the `ref`
and `sha` of `ActionRun` are set according to the base branch of the
pull request. This makes it impossible for us to find the head branch of
the `ActionRun` directly. In this PR, the `ref` and `sha` will always be
set to the head branch and they will be changed to the base branch when
generating the task context.
Fix#25088
This PR adds the support for
[`pull_request_target`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_target)
workflow trigger. `pull_request_target` is similar to `pull_request`,
but the workflow triggered by the `pull_request_target` event runs in
the context of the base branch of the pull request rather than the head
branch. Since the workflow from the base is considered trusted, it can
access the secrets and doesn't need approvals to run.
