Re: Automated usage of Gitlab
Nicolas Fella <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.devel.general,gmane.comp.kde.digikam.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/3/22 12:45, Ben Cooksley wrote: > Hi all, > > Recent analysis of the logs of our Giltab instance has revealed > numerous instances of files being directly retrieved from Gitlab > (using the /raw/ API). Much to my incredible sadness, this has > included accesses being made by KDE Applications themselves. > > As a reminder, automated access to the "raw files" API of Gitlab is > strictly prohibited and not permitted under any circumstances. The > only use of it which is allowed is within .gitlab-ci.yml files to > import job definitions from sysadmin/ci-utilities. > > At this time I am tracking: > - Retrieval of qt/qt/qtbase - .qmake.conf and extra-cmake-modules - > FindUDev.cmake and COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS from systems operating in > Microsoft Azure using curl. > > - Retrieval of *.colors files from the Breeze repositories, > originating from KDE CI/CD servers, likely as a consequence of unit > tests or Craft builds That looks like https://invent.kde.org/packaging/craft-blueprints-kde/-/blob/master/kde/kdemultimedia/kdenlive/kdenlive.py#L116 That's the only usage of raw invent URLs I see in craft-blueprints-kde > > - Retrieval of various code examples from various repositories, > originating from KDE CI/CD servers, likely due to unit tests or Craft > builds utilising them > > - Retrieval by Digikam itself of files from the Digikam code > repository (see > https://invent.kde.org/graphics/digikam/-/blob/master/core/libs/onlineversion/onlineversionchecker.cpp) > > The last one is particularly upsetting, as this is how we ended up > with a bad situation with Discover. > > Developers - please discuss with Sysadmin before implementing > functionality in your software that communicates with KDE.org > infrastructure so we can ensure that the endpoints you are contacting > are highly scalable. > Gitlab does not meet this criteria by any definition at all. > > If we could please get these corrected that would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Ben