When more than one outgoing webhook is configured,
the message which is send to the webhook bot passes
through finalize_payload function multiple times,
which mutated the message dict in a way that many keys
were lost from the dict obj.
This commit fixes that problem by having
`finalize_payload` return a shallow copy of the
incoming dict, instead of mutating it. We still
mutate dicts inside of `post_process_dicts`, though,
for performance reasons.
This was slightly modified by @showell to fix the
`test_both_codepaths` test that was added concurrently
to this work. (I used a slightly verbose style in the
tests to emphasize the transformation from `wide_dict`
to `narrow_dict`.)
I also removed a deepcopy call inside
`get_client_payload`, since we now no longer mutate
in `finalize_payload`.
Finally, I added some comments here and there.
For testing, I mostly protect against the root
cause of the bug happening again, by adding a line
to make sure that `sender_realm_id` does not get
wiped out from the "wide" dictionary.
A better test would exercise the actual code that
exposed the bug here by sending a message to a bot
with two or more services attached to it. I will
do that in a future commit.
Fixes#14384
We now validate the message data explicitly, rather
than comparing it to the event data. This protects
us from false positives where we were only validating
that the request data was a mutated version of the
event message data. (We'll have a commit soon that
fixes a mutation-related bug.)
This code is only used in one test, and having
the indirection of setUp partly obscured a
problem with the fact that our event message
is actually a wide dict that gets mutated
by `build_bot_request`. We'll fix that soon,
but this is a pure code move for now.
The `event` parameter is never used by `process_success`,
and eliminating it allows us to greatly simplify tests
that are just confusingly passing in events that are
totally ignored.
This commit mostly makes our tests less
noisy, since emails are no longer an important
detail of sending messages (they're not even
really used in the API).
It also sets us up to have more scrutiny
on delivery_email/email in the future
for things that actually matter. (This is
a prep commit for something along those
lines, kind of hard to explain the full
plan.)
MigrationsTestCase is intentionally omitted from this, since migrations
tests are different in their nature and so whatever setUp()
ZulipTestCase may do in the future, MigrationsTestCase may not
necessarily want to replicate.
We eliminated use of this function in outgoing_webhook.py in
bdc95b5d72.
Tweaked by tabbott to also eliminate code only used for that mock.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
If we use an outgoing webhook and the web server
responds with `widget_content` in the payload, we
include that in what we send through the send-message
codepath.
This makes outgoing webhook bots more consistent with
generic bots.
This fixes a couple things:
* process_event() is a pretty vague name
* returning tuples should generally be avoided
* we were producing the same REST parameters in both
subclasses
* relative_url_path was always blank
* request_kwargs was always empty
Now process_event() is called build_bot_request(),
and it only returns request data,
not a tuple of `rest_operation` and `request_data`.
By no longer returning `rest_operation`, there are
fewer moving parts. We just have `do_rest_call` make
a POST call.
Before this change, we instantiated base_url into a superclass
of subclasses that returned base_url into a dictionary that
gets returned to our caller.
Now we just pull base_url out of service when we need to make
the REST call.
We move the JSON parsing step into the
higher level function: process_success_response().
In the unlikely event that we'll start integrating
with a solution that doesn't use JSON, we can deal
with that, and for now doing the parsing in one
place will help us make error reporting more
consistent.
In a subsequent commit we'll introduce better
error handling for malformed JSON.
The earlier code here, if it got a payload with
"response_string" as a key, would prefix the
corresponding value with "Success!". We just
want the bot to set its own content.
The code is reorganized here so that process_success()
always produces a value keyed by "content" from
incoming data, and then process_success_response()
doesn't do any fancy munging of the data.
There's no reason to return a failure message in
process_success(), since it's implied to be part of
the success codepath. I didn't look at the full history
of how the strange API evolved, but the second element
of the tuple was clearly noise by the time I got here.
Neither of the subclasses ever set it, and none of the
consumers used it.
Before this change subclasses of OutgoingWebhookServiceInterface
would return a raw string as the first element of its return
tuple in process_success(). This is not a very flexible
design, as it prevents the bot from passing extra data like
`widget_content`.
It's also possible in the future that we'll want to let outgoing
bots reply directly to senders who mention them on streams, and
again the original design was overly constrained for that.
This commit does not actually change any functionality yet.
Private messages are not supported in Slack-format webhook.
Instead of raising a NotImplementedError, we warn the user
that PM service is not supported by sending a message to the
user.
Added tests for the same.
Fixes#9239
This adds the fields `trigger` and `service_email`
to each message event dispatched by outgoing webhook bots.
`trigger` will be used by the Botserver to determine if
a bot is mentioned in the message.
`service_email` will be used by the Botserver to determine
by which outgoing webhook bot the message should be handled.
Udit107710
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Mateusz Mandera
Anders Kaseorg
Anders Kaseorg
Rhea Parekh
Robert Hönig
novokrest
rht
Elliott Jin
vaibhav