Native forgejo support

[qwerty287]

I found a third-party fork of the gitea SDK: https://codeberg.org/mvdkleijn/forgejo-sdk

Closes #3637

[qwerty287]

Tested, seems working

[xoxys]

Nice work. Im a bit unsure about the sdk. Is it stable enough to rely on it? Does it anything different from the gitea sdk? As long as forgejo is api compatible we could still use the gitea sdk.

[woodpecker-bot]

Deployment of preview was successful: https://woodpecker-ci-woodpecker-pr-3684.surge.sh

[6543]

forgejo as to be added to cSpell list

[jolheiser]

just a few nits

[qwerty287]

Nice work. Im a bit unsure about the sdk. Is it stable enough to rely on it? Does it anything different from the gitea sdk? As long as forgejo is api compatible we could still use the gitea sdk.

It's a fork of the gitea SDK and thus I'd say it's stable. It's not doing that much differently currently except renaming gitea to forgejo.

[pat-s]

So man changes 👀

Maybe worth letting the maintainer know that his fork is now being used by WP?

[qwerty287]

He does already: https://codeberg.org/mvdkleijn/forgejo-sdk/issues/2

[mvdkleijn]

Hiya, maintainer of the forgejo sdk here..

Just wanted to let you know that the SDK is indeed a fork of the Gitea SDK. I made the fork after reading about Forgejo's hardfork since I thought that would make sense.

Right now, the fork is the same as the original. I even pulled in the latest updates not too long ago.

I plan to add convenience functions next to functions referencing the Forgejo api 1-on-1.

In general during the course of 1.x you can expect bug fixes, additions and cleanups. The SDK will use semver so if I make backwards incompatible changes, you can expect a major version bump.

I'll probably also add a vanity url for the SDK that people can optionally use so I can move the repo to a different forge if I ever need / want to.

My first order of business though is to make a woodpecker pipeline. I already setup WP locally to test the pipeline since I am new to WP.

Feel free to leave any feedback over at the repo. (sorry for temporarily hijacking this PR with my comment :-p )

[pat-s]

Thanks for doing all the work, @qwerty287!

Even though you tested it, maybe we should add a note in the release notes that this is "experimental" for now?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 51.95402% with 418 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 25.85%. Comparing base (f47f482) to head (1f255a1).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
server/forge/forgejo/forgejo.go	29.03%	323 Missing and 24 partials ⚠️
server/forge/forgejo/parse.go	63.23%	17 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
server/forge/setup/setup.go	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️
server/forge/forgejo/fixtures/handler.go	87.64%	9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
server/forge/forgejo/helper.go	94.97%	7 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
server/services/setup.go	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3684      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   24.99%   25.85%   +0.86%     
==========================================
  Files         357      361       +4     
  Lines       25767    26637     +870     
==========================================
+ Hits         6441     6888     +447     
- Misses      18833    19219     +386     
- Partials      493      530      +37     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.