Starting two runner daemons with the same `.runner` file makes both present an
identical UUID+token, so Gitea treats them as one runner and they cancel each
other's jobs. This adds a non-blocking advisory lock on a sibling
`<runner-file>.lock`: the daemon (and `register`) acquire it at startup, and a
second process on the same host fails fast with a clear error instead of silently
interfering. The OS releases the lock when the process exits — including a hard
kill — so no stale lock is left behind. Legitimate multi-runner setups are
unaffected since each already uses its own `runner.file`.
Note: this covers the common single-host case; two hosts sharing a copied
`.runner` (e.g. over NFS) would still need server-side detection in Gitea.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zettat123 <zettat123@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/runner/pulls/1099
Reviewed-by: Zettat123 <39446+zettat123@noreply.gitea.com>
Completes the runner side of the cancellation flow, superseding #825. Two parts:
### 1. Report cancellations correctly (`fix`)
When `Reporter.Close` ran with the state still `UNSPECIFIED` and the reporter's
context had been cancelled, the synthesised final state attributed the job to
`RESULT_FAILURE` with an "Early termination" log row — misreporting a
cancellation as a generic failure. `Close` now detects the cancelled context
and finalizes the task as `RESULT_CANCELLED`.
### 2. Advertise the `cancelling` capability (`feat`)
[actions-proto-go v0.6.0](https://gitea.com/gitea/actions-proto-go) adds a
`capabilities` field to `RegisterRequest`/`DeclareRequest`, so the runner can
now tell the server it understands the transitional cancelling state:
- Bumps `gitea.dev/actions-proto-go` to `v0.6.0`.
- Adds a single `RunnerCapabilities()` source of truth exposing
`CapabilityCancelling`.
- Sends `Capabilities` on both register and declare.
With this the server records `HasCancellingSupport` and can rely on the runner
running post-step cleanup before a task is finalized as `RESULT_CANCELLED`.
## Compatibility
Wire-compatible against older servers: the new field uses a previously unused
field number (8 on `RegisterRequest`, 3 on `DeclareRequest`) and the client uses
the binary protobuf codec, so a server predating the field silently ignores it —
registration and declaration succeed and the feature simply stays off. It
activates only once both runner and server are on v0.6.0.
## Server side
The matching Gitea change (read `GetCapabilities()`, persist
`HasCancellingSupport`) is a separate PR against `gitea/gitea`.
Supersedes #825.
Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/runner/pulls/1016
Reviewed-by: Zettat123 <39446+zettat123@noreply.gitea.com>
Reviewed-by: wxiaoguang <29147+wxiaoguang@noreply.gitea.com>
The runner already enforces Gitea v1.21+ (see the `connect.CodeUnimplemented` check in `daemon.go`), so several shims kept for v1.20 compatibility have been dead since 2023:
- `compatibleWithOldEnvs` — the `GITEA_DEBUG`, `GITEA_TRACE`, `GITEA_RUNNER_CAPACITY`, `GITEA_RUNNER_FILE`, `GITEA_RUNNER_ENVIRON`, `GITEA_RUNNER_ENV_FILE` env vars (superseded by the config file)
- `VersionHeader` (`x-runner-version`) and the `version` param of `client.New`
- `AgentLabels` field in `RegisterRequest` (replaced by `Labels`)
Also replaces a verbose `strings.TrimRightFunc` closure with `strings.TrimRight(s, "\r\n")` in the log row parser.
---
This PR was written with the help of Claude Opus 4.7
---------
Co-authored-by: Nicolas <bircni@icloud.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/runner/pulls/978
Reviewed-by: Nicolas <bircni@icloud.com>
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-committed-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
I used to be able to do something like `./act_runner register --instance https://gitea.com --token testdcff --name test` on GitHub Actions Runners, but act_runner always asked me to enter instance, token etc. again and requiring me to use `--no-interactive` including passing everything per cli.
My idea was to extract the preset input of some stages to skip the prompt for this value if it is a non empty string. Labels is the only question that has been asked more than once if validation failed, in this case the error path have to unset the values of the input structure to not end in a non-interactive loop.
_I have written this initially for my own gitea runner, might be useful to everyone using the official runner as well_
Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/pulls/682
Reviewed-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Christopher Homberger <christopher.homberger@web.de>
Co-committed-by: Christopher Homberger <christopher.homberger@web.de>
