Previously, comment related notifications only displayed the issue
title as a plain string. This commit reformats the issue title to
include a link back to the Jira issue.
Adjusted the Jira documentation for recent changes in their UI
when setting up webhooks, reformatted the note about compatible
Jira version, and added a link to Jira's official webhook guide.
This is preparatory work towards adding a Topic model.
We plan to use the local variable name as 'topic' for
the Topic model objects.
Currently, we use *topic as the local variable name for
topic names.
We rename local variables of the form *topic to *topic_name
so that we don't need to think about type collisions in
individual code paths where we might want to talk about both
Topic objects and strings for the topic name.
This kind of payload that's loaded from json in the body of the request
is not only used for webhooks, but also in the push bouncer, and may get
used elsewhere too - so a general name is better.
This converts most webhook integration views to use @typed_endpoint instead
of @has_request_variables, rewriting REQ parameters. For these
webhooks, it simply requires switching the decorator, rewriting the
type annotation of payload/message to WebhookPayload[WildValue], and
removing the REQ default that defines the to_wild_value converter.
Black 23 enforces some slightly more specific rules about empty line
counts and redundant parenthesis removal, but the result is still
compatible with Black 22.
(This does not actually upgrade our Python environment to Black 23
yet.)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
markdown-include is GPL licensed.
Also, rewrite it as a block processor, so that it works correctly
inside indented blocks.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Adds request as a parameter to json_success as a refactor towards
making `ignored_parameters_unsupported` functionality available
for all API endpoints.
Also, removes any data parameters that are an empty dict or
a dict with the generic success response values.
We recently ran into a payload in production that didn't contain
an event type at all. A payload where we can't figure out the event
type is quite rare. Instead of letting these payloads run amok, we
should raise a more informative exception for such unusual payloads.
If we encounter too many of these, then we can choose to conduct a
deeper investigation on a case-by-case basis.
With some changes by Tim Abbott.
Since FIXTURE_DIR_NAME is the name of the folder that contains the view
and tests modules of the webhook and another folder called "fixtures" that
store the fixtures, it is more appropriate to call it WEBHOOK_DIR_NAME,
especially when we want to refer to the view module using this variable.
It looks like this ritual was born when a type comment wasn’t working
because it was mistyped without the colon.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>'
Any exception is an "unexpected event", which means talking about
having an "unexpected event logger" or "unexpected event exception" is
confusing. As the error message in `exceptions.py` already explains,
this is about an _unsupported_ event type.
This also switches the path that these exceptions are written to,
accordingly.
8e10ab282a moved UnexpectedWebhookEventType into
`zerver.lib.exceptions`, but left the import into
`zserver.lib.webhooks.common` so that webhooks could continue to
import the exception from there.
This clutters things and adds complexity; there is no compelling
reason that the exception's source of truth should not move alongside
all other exceptions.
This forces us to be a bit more explicit about testing
the three key values in any stream message, and it
also de-clutters the code a bit. I eventually want
to phase out do_test_topic and friends, since they
have the pitfall that you can call them and have them
do nothing, because they don't actually require
values to be be passed in.
I also clean up the code a bit for the tests that
have two new messages arriving.
Having an optional stream_name parameter makes
it confusing to read the code if you know your
webhook is sending private messages.
And then the other two callers are already
checking topics, so they might as well check
stream names, too.
We also have the two stream-oriented callers
make their own call to "subscribe". And we
future-proof this by making sure the exception
for no-message-being-sent calls out that gotcha.
Somewhat in passing, we now assert that
self.STREAM_NAME is not None in the main
helper. This is partly to satisfy mypy, but
it's also a good sanity check.
This also sets the stage for the next commit,
where I'll add an assert_stream_message helper.
Not all webhook payloads are json, so send_json_payload was a
bit misleading.
In passing I also remove "bytes" from the Union type for
"payload" parameter.
Almost all webhook tests use this helper, except a few
webhooks that write to private streams.
Being concise is important here, and the name
`self.send_and_test_stream_message` always confused
me, since it sounds you're sending a stream message,
and it leaves out the webhook piece.
We should consider renaming `send_and_test_private_message`
to something like `check_webhook_private`, but I couldn't
decide on a great name, and it's very rarely used. So
for now I just made sure the docstrings of the two
sibling functions reference each other.
PieterCK
Anders Kaseorg
Lauryn Menard
Mateusz Mandera
Prakhar Pratyush
Tim Abbott
Zixuan James Li
abdullahm1
Hari Prashant Bhimaraju
Lauryn Menard
Eeshan Garg
PIG208
Alex Vandiver
Steve Howell