Adds first-class bot accounts (`UserTypeBot`): local, password-less
users for automation that authenticate only with access tokens.
1. Admin UI: create bots, filter users by type, manage a bot's access
tokens, convert between user and bot
2. API: `POST /admin/users/{username}/convert-type`, and user objects
gain a GitHub-compatible `type` (`User`, `Organization`, `Bot`)
3. CLI: `gitea admin user change-type`, `--user-type` accepts `User` or
`Bot` case-insensitively
4. Converting keeps the password, 2FA, OAuth2 grants and access tokens,
and since sign-in rejects bots, converting back restores the account.
Only local, non-admin accounts can be converted, and conversions are
audited
5. Session, reverse proxy, SSPI, external source and password reset
sign-in reject non-individual users, so a bot never gets an interactive
session
6. Bots receive no notifications or emails
Co-authored-by: Nicolas <bircni@icloud.com>
Co-authored-by: joestump <joe@joestump.net>
Co-authored-by: Joe Stump <joe@stu.mp>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Fixes#28660
Fixes an admin api bug related to `user.LoginSource`
Fixed `/user/emails` response not identical to GitHub api
This PR unifies the user update methods. The goal is to keep the logic
only at one place (having audit logs in mind). For example, do the
password checks only in one method not everywhere a password is updated.
After that PR is merged, the user creation should be next.
This PR is a refactor at the beginning. And now it did 4 things.
- [x] Move renaming organizaiton and user logics into services layer and
merged as one function
- [x] Support rename a user capitalization only. For example, rename the
user from `Lunny` to `lunny`. We just need to change one table `user`
and others should not be touched.
- [x] Before this PR, some renaming were missed like `agit`
- [x] Fix bug the API reutrned from `http.StatusNoContent` to `http.StatusOK`
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>
A lot of our code is repeatedly testing if individual errors are
specific types of Not Exist errors. This is repetitative and unnecesary.
`Unwrap() error` provides a common way of labelling an error as a
NotExist error and we can/should use this.
This PR has chosen to use the common `io/fs` errors e.g.
`fs.ErrNotExist` for our errors. This is in some ways not completely
correct as these are not filesystem errors but it seems like a
reasonable thing to do and would allow us to simplify a lot of our code
to `errors.Is(err, fs.ErrNotExist)` instead of
`package.IsErr...NotExist(err)`
I am open to suggestions to use a different base error - perhaps
`models/db.ErrNotExist` if that would be felt to be better.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
