Instead of adding the assignee to the end of the message body,
we update the message body where the verb is so that the link
formatting at the end of the message is not broken, for example:
"user_a assigned user_b to [issue #XXX title text is here](link)."
This matches the formatting for the issue assigned message body.
Instead of adding the assignee to the end of the message body,
we update the message body where the verb is so that the link
formatting at the end of the message is not broken, for example:
"user_a assigned user_b to [issue #XXX title text is here](link)."
Also updates the issue title in the test fixture so that it tests
that only the first instance of "assigned" or "unassigned" in the
issue title is updated for the assignee text.
Also adds punctuation to the issue title in the test fixture to
test the expected behavior for titles that end in a value from
`string.punctuation`.
Pull request comment alerts were previously sent to a topic for an issue,
which resulted in two different topics for the same PR.
Fixes: #26086.
Co-authored-by: Lauryn Menard <lauryn@zulip.com>
Updated the repo name and pull request number/title for the new
pull request commit fixture to be the same as the one used for the
other pull request test fixtures (e.g. pull_request__opened) so
that the TOPIC_PR can be used in the subsequent updates.
Co-authored-by: Lauryn Menard <lauryn@zulip.com>
Because the third party might not be expecting a 400 from our
webhooks, we now instead use 200 status code for unknown events,
while sending back the error to Sentry. Because it is no longer an error
response, the response type should now be "success".
Fixes#24721.
This commit changes the assignee info to the correct one.
Earlier, the current assignee info of the issue was used
to create the message but when an issue was unassigned
this would give incorrect information if there are still
assignees left on the issue. Now, it uses the details of
the user who has been unassigned from the issue.
This commit removes the description from the Issue Assigned
event message that is sent by the Github Integration.
Previously when an issue was assigned, the message also had the
description of the issue, which is redundant as the description
has been already sent through the issue created event. After
this commit, the description no longer appears in the message.
Fixes#24554
This commit passes the body of the PR Review as the message to
the helper function that generates the message to be sent by the
GitHub Integration.
Previously when a PR Review was done the message sent would just
include the link of the review but the message didn't include the
body the review. After this commit, the message also includes the
body of the review.
Fixes#24676
Previously, the assignee message would stick around in the middle of the
event message. This doesn't look as good as if we put it to the end of
the event message. These changes does just that and move the assignee
messages towards the end of the event message to make it look better
and cleaner for the readers.
Previously when Github bot receives an update pull request event,it
will produce the following message:
user updated PR #1 Start writing unit tests from test to main
"from test to main" is improper and causes unnecessary confusion.
These changes will update the logic to remove the phrase from
update events. These changes will also include the org: prefix to
the branch names to keep it consistent with Github and further
reduce confusions on branch names.
Fixes#24536.
This unifies the length of the shortened SHA our integrations generate,
and ensures that they are long enough for projects of various sizes with
a chosen value defined in get_short_sha.
Fixes#23475
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
7 characters are not enough for large projects, so we change
it to reasonably longer. As an example, The Linux kernel needs
at least 11 characters of sha in its shortened form to identify
a revision. We pick 11 so it should work for most of the projects.
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
We add discussion id and url in the comments and highlighted title to
the body of disscussion message to make it more meaningful and accessible.
Fixes#19938.
We aim to use Zulip topics thoughtfully in displaying messages from
discussions, as well as linking to the discussion in every message so
that it's easy to view them.
Fixes#19938.
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.
This change updates the GitHub Integration webhook
get_opened_or_update_pull_request_body method so that
the description is only printed if it actually changes.
If the update event is a result of some other
attribute update, such as an asignee change, then the
description is not included in the message sent to
the zulip stream.
Fixes#16345
This clears it out of the data sent to Sentry, where it is duplicative
with the indexed metadata -- and potentially exposes PHI if Sentry's
"make this issue public" feature is used.
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.
If there are unsupported keys, we still log an error,
but we now also send a message to the stream. (This
is a good tradeoff for the github webhook, since users
can just turn off notifications if they find it spammy.
Also, we intend to support "repository" soon.)
This is a bit of an experiment to see how this plays
in the field:
* will customers notice the change?
* will Sentry reports look any different?
The main thing fixed here is that we weren't turning
on our keys into a list. And then I refined the message
a bit more, including sorting the keys.
I also avoid the unnecessary "else".
See https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/16258 for
possible follow up here.
We now ignore the following two new pull_request
actions (as well as the three existing ones
from before):
approved
converted_to_draft
As the issue above indicates, we may want to actually
support "approved" if we can find somebody to work
on the webhook. (And then the issue goes a little
broader than what changed here.)
