Add new CLI flags to set name and scopes when creating a user with access token

[kemzeb]

Resolves #33474.

[wxiaoguang]

After more testing, I think your old approach (using separate flags) is better and clearer.

I prefixed these new flags with --access-token to make them in the same "flag group" (a little wordy but IMO it's clearer to users):

   --access-token                  Generate access token for the user (default: false)
   --access-token-name value       Name of the generated access token (default: "gitea-admin")
   --access-token-scopes value     Scopes of the generated access token, comma separated. Examples: "all", "public-only,read:issue", "write:repository,write:user" (default: "all")

Does it look to you?

[kemzeb]

I'll be able to check this out later today

[kemzeb]

Decided to add two more unit tests to cover using of --access-token-name or --access-token-scopes without --access-token

[kemzeb]

Decided to add two more unit tests to cover using of --access-token-name or --access-token-scopes without --access-token

One more thing I thought about.

We currently create a user even if the access token-related flags are misused, so we do create a user but end up not creating an access token if they are misused. Should we catch this misuse earlier to avoid this?

[wxiaoguang]

The "scope" problem has some technical debts, in short:

1. For legacy reasons, empty scope falls back to "all"
2. Ideally we should not accept empty scope any more (will add more fixes and tests)

[wxiaoguang]

One more thing I thought about.

We currently create a user even if the access token-related flags are misused, so we do create a user but end up not creating an access token if they are misused. Should we catch this misuse earlier to avoid this?

Maybe like this ac86171?

[kemzeb]

One more thing I thought about.
We currently create a user even if the access token-related flags are misused, so we do create a user but end up not creating an access token if they are misused. Should we catch this misuse earlier to avoid this?

Maybe like this ac86171?

LGTM!

Not able to approve since I'm the PR author