Question: expected results of models.GetRepositoryAccesses()?

[guillep2k]

• Gitea version (or commit ref): 04cbdf5 (current master)

While working on #9787, I need to rewrite models.GetRepositoryAccesses(). This function is only used by ListMyRepos() as a complement of GetUserRepositories(). ListMyRepos() works the API function:

// swagger:operation GET /user/repos user userCurrentListRepos

GetRepositoryAccesses() is supposed to return all the repositories that the user has access to but does not own. The problem is that the unit test goes like:

gitea/models/access_test.go

Lines 90 to 96 in 04cbdf5

	func TestUser_GetRepositoryAccesses(t *testing.T) {
	assert.NoError(t, PrepareTestDatabase())
	user1 := AssertExistsAndLoadBean(t, &User{ID: 1}).(*User)
	accesses, err := user1.GetRepositoryAccesses()
	assert.NoError(t, err)
	assert.Len(t, accesses, 0)

With the current data, this function should fail because user1 is a site administrator, so it's got access to all repositories. The test asserts that the function returns zero results.

My question is: is the unit test/fixture set wrong, or is it that the function is expected to ignore the is_admin flag to return a shorter list?

[lunny]

I think maybe the function GetRepositoryAccesses is not expected.

I think we should refactor all SearchRepository functions.

[zeripath]

It's an old broken function that I wanted to remove when I fixed search repositories but realised I couldn't as it is part of the API. It should be deprecated.

[guillep2k]

Thanks! So, what's the API expected to do (with some detail)? Maybe it's easier for me to rewrite the endpoint rather than it parts? Where is it used?
I'm afraid that a slow deprecation spanning a couple of versions is not an option from me, since I'm removing the access table: I either get it right or I remove it.

[zeripath]

Ah I see. I think it literally listed if a user was a collaborator or not.

[guillep2k]

Thanks! So it deals with explicit accesses. 👍

[guillep2k]

I think we should refactor all SearchRepository functions.

@lunny I'm on it (#9787)