Don't run push mirrors for archived repos

[JakobDev]

Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/612

At the moment push mirrors are still run if a repo is archived. This PR fixes this.

[KN4CK3R]

Don't know if that is really not the preferred behaviour. If you add a new push mirror for an archived repo I would expect that the mirrored-to repo gets updated.

[wxiaoguang]

Considering an archived repo is read-only, I don't see it should support adding more push mirrors or do the push.

I am neutral for this change, but the nit is that I think the "check" could be done in the "handler" (after m.GetRepository()), then the SQL could still be kept simple, and the code could be easier to read and it's easier to add test code for it (maybe in the future). (hmm, no idea whether it is really better).

Another question is that what's the behavior of the "pull mirror"? Should it pull for archived repo?

[lunny]

I aslo think it's unnecessary to push to upstream when a repository has become archived one. Since there will be no new commits pushed to this archived repository and it will always keep the last commits not changed. Why it should keep to push to remote? It's wasting cpu and memory.

I think the right way to fix this is to disable the buttons on the UI and API to disallow change the push mirrors information. These push mirrors remote addresses should not be removed because maybe the repositories will be converted back to common mirror repositories.

[JakobDev]

I think the right way to fix this is to disable the buttons on the UI and API to disallow change the push mirrors information.

Done

but the nit is that I think the "check" could be done in the "handler" (after m.GetRepository()), then the SQL could still be kept simple, and the code could be easier to read and it's easier to add test code for it (maybe in the future).

I think the SQL is simple enough. Joins are just basic SQL that everyone who knows SQL should understand. We should not load more from the Database than needed.

Another question is that what's the behavior of the "pull mirror"? Should it pull for archived repo?

You can't archive a pull mirror.

[lunny]

I think the right way to fix this is to disable the buttons on the UI and API to disallow change the push mirrors information.

Done

but the nit is that I think the "check" could be done in the "handler" (after m.GetRepository()), then the SQL could still be kept simple, and the code could be easier to read and it's easier to add test code for it (maybe in the future).

I think the SQL is simple enough. Joins are just basic SQL that everyone who knows SQL should understand. We should not load more from the Database than needed.

Another question is that what's the behavior of the "pull mirror"? Should it pull for archived repo?

You can't archive a pull mirror.

Could we just disable the mirrors' buttons but keep the information displayed?

[wxiaoguang]

Overall LGTM.

I would suggest not indenting the {{else}} block, to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

[6543]

Please resolve conflict :)

stale for long time, so have to dismiss the approval.

[denyskon]

@JakobDev Please resolve conflicts :)

[lunny]

This PR is not easy to be backport to v1.21, so I just removed the label.