These weren’t wrong since orjson.JSONDecodeError subclasses
json.JSONDecodeError which subclasses ValueError, but the more
specific ones express the intention more clearly.
(ujson raised ValueError directly, as did json in Python 2.)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
The exception trace only goes from where the exception was thrown up
to where the `logging.exception` call is; any context as to where
_that_ was called from is lost, unless `stack_info` is passed as well.
Having the stack is particularly useful for Sentry exceptions, which
gain the full stack trace.
Add `stack_info=True` on all `logging.exception` calls with a
non-trivial stack; we omit `wsgi.py`. Adjusts tests to match.
Fixes#2665.
Regenerated by tabbott with `lint --fix` after a rebase and change in
parameters.
Note from tabbott: In a few cases, this converts technical debt in the
form of unsorted imports into different technical debt in the form of
our largest files having very long, ugly import sequences at the
start. I expect this change will increase pressure for us to split
those files, which isn't a bad thing.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Automatically generated by the following script, based on the output
of lint with flake8-comma:
import re
import sys
last_filename = None
last_row = None
lines = []
for msg in sys.stdin:
m = re.match(
r"\x1b\[35mflake8 \|\x1b\[0m \x1b\[1;31m(.+):(\d+):(\d+): (\w+)", msg
)
if m:
filename, row_str, col_str, err = m.groups()
row, col = int(row_str), int(col_str)
if filename == last_filename:
assert last_row != row
else:
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
with open(filename) as f:
lines = f.readlines()
last_filename = filename
last_row = row
line = lines[row - 1]
if err in ["C812", "C815"]:
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 1] + "," + line[col - 1 :]
elif err in ["C819"]:
assert line[col - 2] == ","
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 2] + line[col - 1 :].lstrip(" ")
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Prevent `JsonableError(_("Missing content"))` from
ever being triggered.
That error wasn't handle by anything, and thus just threw a 500, as
it's not a response to an HTTP request.
The right fix is to adjust the caller to ban the empty string in
content (or content that strips to the empty string).
Closes#15145.
request_retry and notify_bot_owner don't use request_data so might
as well not send it to them at all.
Signed-off-by: Hemanth V. Alluri <hdrive1999@gmail.com>
Using the Python Standard Library's abc library and NotImplementedError
we can better define interfaces (this is mainly to improve readability
and consistency).
Signed-off-by: Hemanth V. Alluri <hdrive1999@gmail.com>
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
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.
Apparently, the refactor months ago that introduced finalize_payload
wasn't applied to the outgoing webhook code path, resulting in message
dicts with an unexpected format with no avatar_url and some extra
values that were intended to be internal details not relevant to
external clients.
Because this API is not widely used, we expect there to be little to
no impact of converting this back to matching the `get_messages`
interface, as it once was and has always been intended to be.
The one somewhat tricky detail is that we include both the `content`
and `rendered_content` fields, rather than asking the client to pick
which they want via the `apply_markdown` flag, because there is no
place for the client to configure that setting.
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.
Anders Kaseorg
Alex Vandiver
Anders Kaseorg
Hemanth V. Alluri
Udit107710
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Anders Kaseorg
Rhea Parekh
Robert Hönig