README.org casuing 500 internal server error

[arifer612]

Description

[[file:]] Org links are causing 500 internal server errors (similar to #17139):

An error occurred:

Render, orgmode.Render failed: could not write output: interface conversion: org.Node is org.Text, not org.RegularLink

The culprit lies in Org file: links, e.g., [[GPLv3 Badge][file:https://img.shields.io/badge/license-GPL_3-green.svg]]. This should show a GPLv3 badge, but instead triggers the error. Although omitting the file: still achieves the intended result without an error, it should be noted that this works just fine on GitHub and in the previous version of Gitea, i.e., v1.21.3.

P.S. Gitea demo site reproduction was not possible as I could not even log into the demo site.

Gitea Version

1.21.4

Can you reproduce the bug on the Gitea demo site?

No

Log Gist

https://gist.github.com/arifer612/2baa4b54e00392e0d7f0238a2344450f

Screenshots

Git Version

2.40.1

Operating System

unRAID

How are you running Gitea?

Run as a Docker container.

Database

MySQL/MariaDB

[wxiaoguang]

I think the fix could be like this: Fix orgmode link resolving #29024

ps: your content ([[GPLv3 Badge][file:https://...]])seems not matching orgmode syntax: https://orgmode.org/org.html#Link-Format-1 , the format is [[LINK][DESCRIPTION]], so maybe you would like to use [[file:https://...][GPLv3 Badge]] or [[file:https://...][file:https://...]] instead?

[wxiaoguang]

@KN4CK3R sorry I didn't notice that this issue has been assigned to you. If you have been working on this and/or have other approaches, I will close my PR. 🙏

[arifer612]

ps: your content ([[GPLv3 Badge][file:https://...]])seems not matching orgmode syntax: https://orgmode.org/org.html#Link-Format-1 , the format is [[LINK][DESCRIPTION]], so maybe you would like to use [[file:https://...][GPLv3 Badge]] or [[file:https://...][file:https://...]] instead?

Hi, the syntax is actually as intended.

Org interprets whatever is in the DESCRIPTION field as what should be displayed to the user, and whatever is in the LINK field as the target when clicked on. In this, case, we want to display an image at https://..., so that goes into the DESCRIPTION field; and say for example if we want the user to be directed to the LICENSE file, that's what goes into the LINK field. You can refer to an example repository here that does just this.

[wxiaoguang]

You can refer to an example repository here that does just this.

Let's see this example:

[[LICENSE][https://img.shields.io/badge/license-GPL_3-green.svg]]

It is rendered as:

<a href="/arifer612/spacemacs-literate-layering/blob/master/LICENSE">
    <img src="https://....(the svg)" alt="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-GPL_3-green.svg">
</a>

So I think my understanding is right: [LICENSE] is rendered as a link to /arifer612/spacemacs-literate-layering/blob/master/LICENSE

---

If you have new cases, could you elaborate them to show the expected output for your cases?

[arifer612]

I've just commented on the PR, which gives a different example for it:
#29024 (comment)

[arifer612]

Let's see this example:

[[LICENSE][https://img.shields.io/badge/license-GPL_3-green.svg]]

What should be tested, however, is [[LICENSE][file:https://img.shields.io/badge/license-GPL_3-green.svg]].

[wxiaoguang]

I've just commented on the PR, which gives a different example for it:

According to the newly added test case, everything works as expected. #29024 (comment)

What should be tested, however, is [[LICENSE][file:https://img.shields.io/badge/license-GPL_3-green.svg]].

Relative links are covered by

ps: actually, the "relative link handling" is not in this PR's scope. Because, the relative link logic is managed by the common framework (which is for both markdown/orgmode). So if there is any relative link bug, it should be handled from the framework level first.

[arifer612]

If it's fixed, then all is good, thanks!

Replying to the P.S., the issue here isn't about the relative link handling, I only brought that up because you mentioned that the syntax used was incorrect. Gitea resolves relative links perfectly fine as it is now.

[KN4CK3R]

@KN4CK3R sorry I didn't notice that this issue has been assigned to you. If you have been working on this and/or have other approaches, I will close my PR. 🙏

Everything fine, didn't find the time.