Generated by pyupgrade --py36-plus --keep-percent-format, but with the
NamedTuple changes reverted (see commit
ba7906a3c6, #15132).
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
mock is just a backport of the standard library’s unittest.mock now.
The SAMLAuthBackendTest change is needed because
MagicMock.call_args.args wasn’t introduced until Python
3.8 (https://bugs.python.org/issue21269).
The PROVISION_VERSION bump is skipped because mock is still an
indirect dev requirement via moto.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Use get_release_event_message from webhooks/git.py to format release
events using the newly implemented release message template.
Tweaked by tabbott to handle name=None.
Builds on #14746. Proposed in #14934.
GitHub supports opening a draft/WIP pull request and then marking it
as ready for review later on. This PR supports the ready_for_review
action for pull_request events.
Signed-off-by: Hemanth V. Alluri <hdrive1999@gmail.com>
Generated by `pyupgrade --py3-plus --keep-percent-format` on all our
Python code except `zthumbor` and `zulip-ec2-configure-interfaces`,
followed by manual indentation fixes.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Then, find and fix a predictable number of previous misuses.
With a small change by tabbott to preserve backwards compatibility for
sending `yes` for the `forged` field.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
For storing HTTP headers as a function of fixture name, previously
we required that the fixture_to_headers method should reside in a
separate module called headers.py.
However, as in many cases, this method will only take a few lines,
we decided to move this function into the view.py file of the
integration instead of requiring a whole new file called headers.py
This commit introduces the small change in the system architecture,
migrates the GitHub integration, and updates the docs accordingly.
In the GitHub integration we established that for many integrations,
we can directly map the fixture filename to the set of required
headers and by following a simple naming convention we can greatly
ease the logic involved in fixture_to_headers method required .
So to prevent the need for duplicating the logic used by the GitHub
integration, we created a method called `get_http_headers_from_filename`
which will take the name of the HTTP header (key) and then return a
corresponding method (in a decorator-like fashion) which could then be
equated to fixture_to_headers in headers.py.
The GitHub integration was modified to use this method and the docs
were updated to suggest using this when possible.
According to GitHub's webhook docs, the scope of a membership
event can only be limited to 'teams', which holds true when a
new member is added to a team. However, we just found a payload
in our logs that indicates that when a user is removed from a
team, the scope of the membership is erroneously set to
'organization', not 'team'. This is most likely a bug on
GitHub's end because such behaviour is a direct violation of
their webhook API event specifications. We account for this
by restricting membership events to teams explicitly, at least
till GitHub's docs suggest otherwise.
A check suite is a collection of check runs. We care a lot more
about the outcomes of check runs in this case because check_run
payloads are a lot more informative than check_suite payloads.
(And in any case, the check_suite events are primarily for notifying
tools like CI to run checks).
We only support notifications for events where a check run has
completed. Notifications for when a check run has been queued or
is in progress are not very informative and may be too noisy.
The payloads for this event are missing some important details
about the Project's changes, such as the name of the project,
the card's column name, etc. Without such details, the resultant
notifications would not be useful at all!
We recently received a bug report that implied that for certain
payloads, the `requested_reviewers` key was empty whereas a
singular `requested_reviewer` key containing one reviewer's
information was present in its stead. Naturally, this raised
some not so pretty IndexError exceptions.
After some investigation and generating a few similar payloads,
I discovered that in every case both the `requested_reviewers`
and the `requested_reviewer` keys were correctly populated, so I
had to manually edit the payload to reproduce the error on my end.
My guess is that this anomaly goes back to when GitHub's reviewer
request feature was new and didn't support requesting multiple
reviewers, and that the singular `requested_reviewer` key could
possibly just be there for backwards compatibility or might just
be mere oversight. Either way, the solution here is to look for the
plural `requested_reviewers` key, and if that is empty, fall back
to the singular `requested_reviewer` key.
It was a painful amount of work to generate the actual payload.
Since the only difference was a small build URL, I manually
edited the payload and used that for testing.
This commit gets our GitHub webhook up to 100% test coverage.
Some of the page build message code had insufficient test coverage.
I looked at generating the payloads that would allow me to test
the lines of code in question, but it was too much work to
generate the payloads and this seemed like a vague event anyway.
So I just rewrote the logic so that the lines missing
coverage are implicitly covered.
This is a part of our efforts to get this webhook's coverage
up to 100%.
Note that apart from just testing an uncovered line of code, this
commit also fixes a minor bug in the code for messages about issue
comment deletion and editing.
This is a follow-up in response to Tim's comments on #9951.
In instances where all messages from a GitHub integration are
grouped under one user specified topic (specified in the URL), we
should include the title of the issue/PR in the message body, since
the availability of a user-specified topic precludes us from
including it in the topic itself (which was the default behaviour).
This was technically a bug. For events that aren't unsupported
intentionally, the control should fall to the line that raises
UnknownWebhookEventType, and shouldn't be handled by anything else.
The events that are intentionally unsupported should be handled
more explicitly.
This improves test coverage for a lot of our webhooks that relied
on ad-hoc methods to handle unexpected event types.
Note that I have deliberately skipped github_legacy, it isn't
advertised and is officially deprecated.
Also, I have refrained from making further changes to Trello, I
believe further improvements to test coverage should be covered
in separate per-webhook commits/PRs.
Anders Kaseorg
Hemanth V. Alluri
cestrell
Puneeth Chaganti
Anders Kaseorg
Stefan Weil
Sourabh Singh
Tim Abbott
Brutus5000
Eeshan Garg
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Aditya Bansal
rht
Rhea Parekh