Writable deploy keys (closes #671) #3225

vtemian · 2017-12-18T10:58:38Z

Add support for read/write deploy key (as github has).

It introduces a new option for write access and an info note that will show the user key's access mode (read/write).
Those options are supported by the API as well.

lafriks · 2017-12-18T11:35:05Z

models/ssh_key.go

@@ -600,6 +600,9 @@ type DeployKey struct {
 	Fingerprint string
 	Content     string `xorm:"-"`

+	Mode     AccessMode


Why is access mode needed, why not just use ReadOnly?

Also as table is changed it needs migration to Sync2 that type

It's a little tricky...

DeployKey seems to be just a proxy table, with some cached property (like Name and Fingerprint) of PublicKey. Using the same reasoning, I thought that it will be better to have a Mode column (like Name and Fingerprint).

Another way to do this will be to have retrieved the Mode from PublicKey (similar to how Content is retrieved), but this means an extra query for each access (most probably in AfterLoad function, since xorm doesn't that for you...maybe go-xorm/xorm#41 will solve it).

ReadOnly is just a property so I don't have to compare Mode with AccessRead, more like HasRecentActivity.

ethantkoenig · 2017-12-24T00:07:10Z

templates/repo/settings/deploy_keys.tmpl

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
 										{{.Fingerprint}}
 									</div>
 									<div class="activity meta">
-										<i>{{$.i18n.Tr "settings.add_on"}} <span>{{.CreatedUnix.FormatShort}}</span> —  <i class="octicon octicon-info"></i> {{if .HasUsed}}{{$.i18n.Tr "settings.last_used"}} <span {{if .HasRecentActivity}}class="green"{{end}}>{{.UpdatedUnix.FormatShort}}</span>{{else}}{{$.i18n.Tr "settings.no_activity"}}{{end}}</i>
+										<i>{{$.i18n.Tr "settings.add_on"}} <span>{{.CreatedUnix.FormatShort}}</span> —  <i class="octicon octicon-info"></i> {{if .HasUsed}}{{$.i18n.Tr "settings.last_used"}} <span {{if .HasRecentActivity}}class="green"{{end}}>{{.UpdatedUnix.FormatShort}}</span>{{else}}{{$.i18n.Tr "settings.no_activity"}}{{end}} - <span>Read{{if not .ReadOnly}} / Write {{end}}</i>


text in templates should use i18n locales

ethantkoenig · 2017-12-24T00:12:30Z

integrations/api_keys_test.go

@@ -37,3 +39,54 @@ func TestDeleteDeployKeyNoLogin(t *testing.T) {
 	req := NewRequest(t, "DELETE", "/api/v1/repos/user2/repo1/keys/1")
 	MakeRequest(t, req, http.StatusUnauthorized)
 }
+
+func TestCreateReadOnlyDeployKey(t *testing.T) {


Thank you very much for adding tests!

However, our suite of integration tests is becoming quite unwieldy. Would you consider instead writing equivalent unit tests for the DeployKeysPosthandler? See routers/repo/issue_label_test.go for some examples.

I wrote the unit tests, but I don't know if it's ok to dump the integration tests.
Those are testing the API and the unit tests the interface.

Okay, let's leave the integration tests. Eventually, it might make sense to convert our API integration tests to unit tests, but that's for another day. Thanks for adding unit tests!

vtemian · 2017-12-28T17:54:44Z

@lafriks @ethantkoenig Thanks for code review!
Can you guys take a second look?

lafriks · 2017-12-28T17:56:08Z

models/migrations/v54.go

+		return fmt.Errorf("Sync2: %v", err)
+	}
+
+	_, err := x.Cols("mode").Update(&DeployKey{


Is this really needed as NOT NULL DEFAULT when adding column should automatically add default value?

ethantkoenig · 2017-12-29T02:50:15Z

options/locale/locale_en-US.ini

 settings.no_deploy_keys = You haven't added any deploy keys.
 settings.title = Title
 settings.deploy_key_content = Content
+settings.is_writable = Allow write access
+settings.is_writable_info = Can this key be used to <strong>push</strong> to this repository? Deploy keys always have pull access.


Duplicate of lines 991-992?

ethantkoenig · 2017-12-29T02:55:49Z

models/ssh_key.go

@@ -600,6 +600,9 @@ type DeployKey struct {
 	Fingerprint string
 	Content     string `xorm:"-"`

+	Mode     AccessMode `xorm:"NOT NULL DEFAULT 1"`
+	ReadOnly bool       `xorm:"-"`


nit: could we add a ReadOnly() method instead of adding a field?

ethantkoenig · 2017-12-29T02:56:37Z

integrations/api_keys_test.go

+		ID:       newDeployKey.ID,
+		Name:     rawKeyBody.Title,
+		Content:  rawKeyBody.Key,
+		ReadOnly: true,


The ReadOnly field is not stored in the DB, so this condition has no effect. You should instead check the Mode field (which is in the DB). Likewise for the unit test.

lunny · 2017-12-30T04:24:24Z

CI failed

lafriks · 2018-01-03T00:47:15Z

@vtemian To fix tests please add deploy_key.yml in fixtures folder with content like here: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/master/models/fixtures/gpg_key.yml

vtemian · 2018-01-03T08:19:54Z

Thanks @lafriks

codecov-io · 2018-01-03T08:23:50Z

Codecov Report

Merging #3225 into master will increase coverage by 0.41%.
The diff coverage is 50%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3225      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   34.67%   35.08%   +0.41%     
==========================================
  Files         278      279       +1     
  Lines       40506    40522      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits        14044    14217     +173     
+ Misses      24394    24203     -191     
- Partials     2068     2102      +34

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
models/migrations/migrations.go	`2.89% <ø> (ø)`	⬆️
modules/auth/user_form.go	`25% <ø> (ø)`	⬆️
models/migrations/v55.go	`0% <0%> (ø)`
routers/repo/setting.go	`7.34% <100%> (+2.67%)`	⬆️
routers/api/v1/repo/key.go	`20.49% <100%> (+20.49%)`	⬆️
models/ssh_key.go	`39.2% <81.81%> (+7.58%)`	⬆️
modules/process/manager.go	`76.81% <0%> (-4.35%)`	⬇️
models/lfs.go	`28.26% <0%> (+2.17%)`	⬆️
... and 5 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 70b6c07...b3e094e. Read the comment docs.

ethantkoenig · 2018-01-04T05:56:12Z

LGTM

lafriks · 2018-01-06T19:58:28Z

@vtemian you need to rename migration to v55 as other migration was merged already. As soon as you do that this PR can be merged

lafriks · 2018-01-06T20:12:42Z

@vtemian please force push to get tests pass, seems to be random failure not related to this PR

lafriks · 2018-01-06T20:37:52Z

@vtemian you have renamed existing v54.go that comes from master not yours

vtemian · 2018-01-06T21:31:48Z

@lafriks It should be good now. Thanks!

vtemian mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2017

Add ReadOnly field supporting writable deploy keys. go-gitea/go-sdk#84

Merged

lafriks added the type/feature Completely new functionality. Can only be merged if feature freeze is not active. label Dec 18, 2017

lafriks added this to the 1.4.0 milestone Dec 18, 2017

lafriks requested changes Dec 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

ethantkoenig suggested changes Dec 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch 5 times, most recently from 95c1675 to a1f29cd Compare December 28, 2017 13:10

tboerger added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label Dec 28, 2017

lafriks reviewed Dec 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

ethantkoenig suggested changes Dec 29, 2017

View reviewed changes

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch from fa1a1a1 to dd22f0f Compare December 29, 2017 07:18

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch 2 times, most recently from bb97518 to 0f6ae7c Compare December 30, 2017 12:49

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch from 3081099 to 4771472 Compare January 3, 2018 08:11

lafriks approved these changes Jan 3, 2018

View reviewed changes

tboerger added lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels Jan 3, 2018

ethantkoenig approved these changes Jan 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

tboerger added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels Jan 4, 2018

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch from 5d232ac to 691820b Compare January 6, 2018 20:04

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch from 691820b to 440cd76 Compare January 6, 2018 20:28

vtemian added 15 commits January 6, 2018 22:55

Add is_writable checkbox to deploy keys interface

9d44308

Add writable key option to deploy key form

0bb3228

Add support for writable ssh keys in the interface

147063e

Rename IsWritable to ReadOnly

e4315d9

Test: create read-only and read-write deploy keys via api

96e85d7

Add DeployKey access mode migration

8becb7e

Update gitea sdk via govendor

1142740

Fix deploykey migration

1dc6f3e

Add unittests for writable deploy keys

9256cf6

Move template text to locale

dde53ee

Remove implicit column update

5ec7d62

Remove duplicate locales

328d9f2

Replace ReadOnly field with IsReadOnly method

d5bc046

Fix deploy_keys related integration test

af5191c

Rename v54 migration with v55

9337688

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch 4 times, most recently from 3b0686c to c5f6b56 Compare January 6, 2018 21:00

Fix migration hell

b3e094e

vtemian force-pushed the writable-deploy-keys-671 branch from c5f6b56 to b3e094e Compare January 6, 2018 21:02

lafriks merged commit e78786e into go-gitea:master Jan 6, 2018

lafriks mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2018

Add draft blog post for 1.4.0 release go-gitea/blog#54

Merged

go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 23, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Writable deploy keys (closes #671) #3225

Writable deploy keys (closes #671) #3225

vtemian commented Dec 18, 2017

lafriks Dec 18, 2017

lafriks Dec 18, 2017

vtemian Dec 18, 2017

ethantkoenig Dec 24, 2017

ethantkoenig Dec 24, 2017

vtemian Dec 28, 2017

ethantkoenig Dec 29, 2017

vtemian commented Dec 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lafriks Dec 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ethantkoenig Dec 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ethantkoenig Dec 29, 2017

ethantkoenig Dec 29, 2017

lunny commented Dec 30, 2017

lafriks commented Jan 3, 2018

vtemian commented Jan 3, 2018

codecov-io commented Jan 3, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ethantkoenig commented Jan 4, 2018

lafriks commented Jan 6, 2018

lafriks commented Jan 6, 2018

lafriks commented Jan 6, 2018

vtemian commented Jan 6, 2018

Writable deploy keys (closes #671) #3225

Writable deploy keys (closes #671) #3225

Conversation

vtemian commented Dec 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vtemian commented Dec 28, 2017 • edited Loading

lafriks Dec 28, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ethantkoenig Dec 29, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lunny commented Dec 30, 2017

lafriks commented Jan 3, 2018

vtemian commented Jan 3, 2018

codecov-io commented Jan 3, 2018 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

ethantkoenig commented Jan 4, 2018

lafriks commented Jan 6, 2018

lafriks commented Jan 6, 2018

lafriks commented Jan 6, 2018

vtemian commented Jan 6, 2018

vtemian commented Dec 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

lafriks Dec 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ethantkoenig Dec 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

codecov-io commented Jan 3, 2018 •

edited

Loading