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>
This now sets the user-agent to something like:
ZulipOutgoingWebhook/2.0
(It uses the current ZULIP_VERSION.)
Before this change, the user-agent would be
something like `python-requests/2.18.4`.
Fixes#10741
When you send a message to a bot that wants
to talk via an outgoing webhook, and there's
an error (e.g. server is down), we send a
message to the bot's owner that links to the
message that triggered the error.
The code to produce those links was out of
date.
Now we move the important code to the
`url_encoding.py` library and fix the PM
links to use the more modern style (user_ids
instead of emails). We also replace "subject"
with "topic" in the stream urls.
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.
For our bots that use GenericOutgoingWebhookService
(which are basically Zulip style bots), we now
include a "content-type" header of "application/json".
We accomplish this by having the service classes
implement their own custom method called
`send_data_to_server`. For the Slack-related
code, we just extracted code from `do_rest_call`,
and then for the Zulip-related code, we added
a `headers` parameter.
If we omit methods in subclasses, they're likely to
be caught by linters or unit tests, and even if they
aren't, raising NotImplementedError doesn't actually
prevent user problems.
I've been fighting these in refactoring, and it's
just been a bunch of busy work, plus comments are
highly likely to bitrot.
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.
We now allow outgoing webhooks to provide us a
"content" field, which is probably a more guessable
name than "response_string", particularly for folks
that use our other bot-related APIs. And we don't
modify content as we do response_string, i.e. no
"Success!" prefix.
If we're not too concerned about backward compatibility,
we can do a subsequent commit that makes "content"
and "response_string" true synonyms and get rid of
the "Success!" prefix, which was probably accidental
to begin with.
This commit starts by changing the third
argument of send_response_message to be a Dict
instead of a string, so that the data can be more
structured going forward.
That change makes the 2nd/3rd parameters both be
dicts, so to be defensive, I now have all the callers
pass in explicit keyword names. And then I rename
message to message_info, so that the callers have
more clear code.
And that changes the implementation inside of
send_response_message() a bit.
Sorry this commit is a bit coarse, but the intermediate
commits would have been kind of ugly, too.
At the end of the day, it's pretty simple:
bot_id: never changed
message_info: just renamed from message
response_data: is a Dict with the key of "content"
And the innards of send_response_message() are basically
simply dictionary lookups and function calls.
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.
This two-line function wasn't really carrying its
weight, and it just made it harder to refactor the
overall codepath.
Eliminating the function forces us to mock at a slightly
deeper level, which is probably a good thing for what
the test intends to do. The deeper mock still verifies that
we're sending the message (good) without digging into
all the details of how we send it (good).
Note that we will still keep around the similarly named
`fail_with_message` helper, which is a lot more useful.
(The succeed/fail scenarios aren't really symmetric here.
For success, there are fewer codepaths that do more complex
things, whereas we have lots and lots of failure codepaths
that all do the same simple thing of replying with a canned
message.)
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
Extracting this helper library will help us avoid an import loop
between notifications.py and message.py (with bugdown in between).
But in addition to that, it's a more natural model, since some of the
uses for these functions weren't part of the notifications code
anyway.
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.
This commit prefixes stream names in urls with stream ids,
so that the urls don't break when we rename streams.
strean name: foo bar.com%
before: #narrow/stream/foo.20bar.2Ecom.25
after: #narrow/stream/20-foo-bar.2Ecom.25
For new realms, everything is simple under the new scheme, since
we just parse out the stream id every time to figure out where
to narrow.
For old realms, any old URLs will still work under the new scheme,
assuming the stream hasn't been renamed (and of course old urls
wouldn't have survived stream renaming in the first place). The one
exception is the hopefully rare case of a stream name starting with
something like "99-" and colliding with another stream whose id is 99.
The way that we enocde the stream name portion of the URL is kind
of unimportant now, since we really only look at the stream id, but
we still want a safe encoding of the name that is mostly human
readable, so we now convert spaces to dashes in the stream name. Also,
we try to ensure more code on both sides (frontend and backend) calls
common functions to do the encoding.
Fixes#4713
Previously, this accessed realm.uri via trying to use
zulip_default_context. That doesn't make any sense, because
zulip_default_context expects an HttpRequest object, and those are
nowhere in sight in the code path. We do, however, have the outgoing
webhook bot user involved in the event, and that's the object to
access realm.uri from here.
Anders Kaseorg
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Rhea Parekh
Tim Abbott
Robert Hönig
Aditya Bansal
novokrest
rht
Umair Khan