Better display of bot accounts on UI #14082

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2025-11-02T11:02:23-06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 11:02:23 -06:00

Originally created by @typed-sigterm on GitHub (Feb 1, 2025).

Description

Although bots (type = 4) cannot sign in, the checkbox is still available:

And I don't think these features are applicable to bots - GitHub also disables them:

Perhaps we can add a Bot badge on the account page of the bots and the org/team page, just like on the management page:

Link #24026 #13044.

Gitea Version

1.23.1

Can you reproduce the bug on the Gitea demo site?

No

Log Gist

No response

Screenshots

See above

Git Version

2.47.1

Operating System

Ubuntu 24.04.1

How are you running Gitea?

Not so important

Database

None

Originally created by @typed-sigterm on GitHub (Feb 1, 2025). ### Description Although bots (`type = 4`) cannot sign in, the checkbox is still available: ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/92b6c9c1-54eb-4f7c-8f7e-e13d2ab5c3f5) And I don't think these features are applicable to bots - GitHub also disables them: ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9b49fd68-3ed3-4032-afe0-82b5624a21b7) Perhaps we can add a `Bot` badge on the account page of the bots and the org/team page, just like on the management page: ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ed3e7667-533c-4647-948d-f3f044f85cbb) Link #24026 #13044. ### Gitea Version 1.23.1 ### Can you reproduce the bug on the Gitea demo site? No ### Log Gist _No response_ ### Screenshots *See above* ### Git Version 2.47.1 ### Operating System Ubuntu 24.04.1 ### How are you running Gitea? *Not so important* ### Database None

GiteaMirror added the type/enhancement topic/ui labels 2025-11-02 11:02:23 -06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 11:02:24 -06:00

@lunny commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2025):

I believe this is a bug. The bot account type was added without proper UI integration, leaving many inconsistencies across the system. Moving forward, we should avoid introducing incomplete features and focus on building a well-designed system.

Key considerations:
- Clearly define the differences between a bot account and a regular user account.
- If a bot user cannot log in, how should tokens be generated? Should we introduce a “sudo” mode for web operations, similar to API access?
- How does a bot user differ from an app user if we plan to implement a GitHub-style App system?

By addressing these points, we can ensure a more robust and user-friendly implementation.

@lunny commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2025): I believe this is a bug. The bot account type was added without proper UI integration, leaving many inconsistencies across the system. Moving forward, we should avoid introducing incomplete features and focus on building a well-designed system. Key considerations: - Clearly define the differences between a bot account and a regular user account. - If a bot user cannot log in, how should tokens be generated? Should we introduce a “sudo” mode for web operations, similar to API access? - How does a bot user differ from an app user if we plan to implement a GitHub-style App system? By addressing these points, we can ensure a more robust and user-friendly implementation.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 11:02:24 -06:00

@typed-sigterm commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2025):

If a bot user cannot log in, how should tokens be generated? Should we introduce a “sudo” mode for web operations, similar to API access?

It seems that API sudo mode cannot generate an access token for another either, and the token generated by gitea admin user create --access-token has no scope. I must manually edit its scopes in the database.

@typed-sigterm commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2025): > - If a bot user cannot log in, how should tokens be generated? Should we introduce a “sudo” mode for web operations, similar to API access? It seems that API sudo mode cannot generate an access token for another either, and the token generated by `gitea admin user create --access-token` has no scope. I must manually edit its scopes in the database.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 11:02:24 -06:00

@techknowlogick commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2025):

@lunny it was implemented that way intentionally, as a minimal implementation. Rather than a large PR, multiple minor enhancements were made. Since it is still not possible to set a user as a bot without modifying the database this approach was found suitable so at least some advanced users could attempt to use it.

@techknowlogick commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2025): @lunny it was implemented that way intentionally, as a minimal implementation. Rather than a large PR, multiple minor enhancements were made. Since it is still not possible to set a user as a bot without modifying the database this approach was found suitable so at least some advanced users could attempt to use it.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 11:02:25 -06:00

@typed-sigterm commented on GitHub (Feb 12, 2025):

Also, I think bot activities should be excluded from the dashboard.

@typed-sigterm commented on GitHub (Feb 12, 2025): Also, I think bot activities should be excluded from the dashboard.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 11:02:25 -06:00

@lunny commented on GitHub (Feb 12, 2025):

Also, I think bot activities should be excluded from the dashboard.

Maybe it should be an option.

@lunny commented on GitHub (Feb 12, 2025): > Also, I think bot activities should be excluded from the dashboard. Maybe it should be an option.

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#14082