Running without GITEA_ADMIN_TOKEN is the safer configuration and is documented
as such, but the member form did not know: it offered "Crear también su cuenta"
ticked by default and reported "Falta GITEA_ADMIN_TOKEN" only on submit, after
three fields had been filled in.
That is the shape of failure this project has lost the most time to — something
that cannot happen, going unsaid until someone has relied on it. The form now
reads the config when it renders and says so, with a link to Gitea's create-user
page.
The checkbox is disabled rather than hidden, because "you cannot do this here"
is more use than an option that quietly is not there. The refusal itself stays
in the handler: a disabled input is a courtesy, and a hand-crafted POST still
meets the same error.
Verified: 104 checks. The form states the limit with no token and is unchanged
with one, and submitting create_account anyway still creates no member.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NizVpJ2dwzCbjCrTLCjeHn
Everything on this site so far has been a file built from git. This is the
first component that runs code to answer a request and the first whose data
git does not hold, so the trade is stated in the README and the backup script
is not optional.
Roles are owner, admin and user. The owner is seeded once from BOARD_OWNER and
cannot be seeded again, because otherwise editing a compose file would be a
quieter way to take the top role than asking for it; ownership moves only by
transfer, inside the app. There is exactly one owner and a partial unique index
enforces it, so the invariant holds even when a handler is wrong. The owner is
beyond suspension and demotion by everyone, themselves included. Only the owner
makes admins; admins make users.
Sign-in goes through Gitea as a confidential OAuth client — the opposite of
Decap, which has to be public because it runs in the browser. The rule the
whole thing rests on is that a Gitea account is not a membership: entry needs
an active row in `members`, or every account on the instance is a member,
starting with the translations bot.
Admins can delete any post; nobody can edit anyone else's, admins included.
Taking a post down is visible to its author. Quietly rewriting it is not, and
an admin who could do that could leave a sentence attributed to someone who
never wrote it. The plan said admins could do both; this is the one place the
implementation departs from it.
Markdown renders with raw HTML disabled, which is the entire XSS defence and
the reason there is no sanitiser: the renderer emits only its own tags and
escapes the rest. The CSP carries no 'unsafe-inline', which makes an inline
onsubmit silently inert rather than broken, so the confirmation dialogs live in
a static file and a test fails any template that grows an inline handler.
GDPR is in scope rather than deferred: erasure removes the member row and moves
their authorship to a tombstone so the conversations around them still read,
and any member can download their own writing.
Verified: 63 checks pass, covering the membership gate, every role predicate, a
direct insert of a second owner being refused by the index, atomic ownership
transfer, CSRF, an offsite login redirect, script tags rendering as text, soft
deletes leaving both listings and exports, and the member screens rendering for
each role. Smoke-tested live: headers, both static assets, and the bare
/comunidad redirect that the Caddy matcher has to cover.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NizVpJ2dwzCbjCrTLCjeHn
