Update gitea-vet to v0.2.1

[6543]

as title

[6543]

blocked by #11646

[6543]

blocked by #12286

[mrsdizzie]

can we ignore old migrations and only apply this rule to newer ones? it feels very wrong and error-prone to go back and re-write dozens of old migrations that have been working for a while

[6543]

@mrsdizzie at this point this are indirect dependencys

for example on v70: the setting.Service.DefaultEnableDependencies value is used.
setting.Service struct as one field (not that one) who is a type decrlared in structs

So my suggestion where: for dependencys: ignores structs and just deny direct imports for structs

[lunny]

Just ignore the previous is better I think. Maybe we need a white list for these files on vet to do that.

[6543]

@lunny https://gitea.com/gitea/gitea-vet/pulls/9

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #12282 into master will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12282   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   43.76%   43.76%           
=======================================
  Files         631      631           
  Lines       69870    69870           
=======================================
+ Hits        30580    30582    +2     
+ Misses      34338    34336    -2     
  Partials     4952     4952           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
modules/util/timer.go	42.85% <0.00%> (-42.86%)	⬇️
modules/avatar/avatar.go	50.00% <0.00%> (-4.77%)	⬇️
services/pull/pull.go	42.26% <0.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
services/pull/temp_repo.go	29.78% <0.00%> (+3.19%)	⬆️
services/pull/update.go	57.69% <0.00%> (+5.76%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update eb60a5d...1a5b2f4. Read the comment docs.

[6543]

🚀