A recent change to check_send_webhook_message allows webhooks to
unescape stream names before sending a message. This commit adds
a test for the edge case where the webhook URL is escaped twice by
a third-party.
Recently, one of our users reported that a JIRA webhook was not
able to send messages to a stream with a space character in its
name. Turns out that JIRA does something weird with webhook URLs,
such that escaped space characters (%20) are escaped again, so
that when the request gets to Zulip, the double escaped %20 is
evaluated as the literal characters `%20`, and not as a space.
We fix this by unescaping the stream name on our end before
sending the message forward!
This fixes the fact that these emoji were sometimes not displaying
properly (because of changes in the emoji names used in the codebase),
while also making this integration more standard (since it was the
only one with such an aggressive use of emoji).
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.
This commit adds a test for the payload that is generated when
a Task is moved from one user story to another on Taiga's Sprint
Taskboard UI.
This commit also gets up this webhook's test coverage up to 100%.
I generated multiple payloads and verified that there are no
`change` event payloads that will not contain the values in
question, so it is useless to catch these KeyErrors. If there are
any anomalies still, it is better to be notified about them than
to silently ignore them.
IFTTT allows custom templating for their payloads, so the onus is
on the user to ensure that their custom templates conform to the
expectations outlined in our IFTTT webhook docs. For that reason,
these payloads weren't generated, but were manually edited.
After discovering a couple of bugs, I decided to thoroughly test
and rewrite this integration from scratch. The older code wasn't
generating coherent messages.
This also commit gets this integration up to 100% test coverage.
Test coverage was improved by removing an unused function and
removing some code (written by me) that was actually handling
Test Hook event types incorrectly.
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.
Note that Freshdesk allows custom templating for outgoing payloads
in their webhook UI. Therefore, the payloads added in this commit
did not have to be official payloads from Freshdesk.
Instead of just referring to the commit with the raw URL, we
should use the commit ID as the text of the hyperlink.
Note that in commit_status_changed type messages, the name of the
commit isn't available.
The function that generates the body of the commit_status_changed
event messages generated an invalid commit URL.
Most likely, we missed this because this event type is fairly
vague and it is possible it was never tested by users much,
if at all.
The lack of coverage was due to:
* An unused function that was never used anywhere.
* get_commit_status_changed_body was using a regex where it didn't
really need to use one. And there was an if statement that
assumed that the payload might NOT contain the URL to the commit.
However, I checked the payload and there shouldn't be any instances
where a commit event is generated but there is no URL to the commit.
* get_push_tag_body had an `else` condition that really can't happen
in any payload. I verified this by checking the BitBucket webhook
docs.
We shouldn't just ignore exceptions when encoding the incoming
auth credentials. Even if the incoming credentials are properly
encoded, it is better to know when that is the case or if
something else fails.
The TeamCity webhook plugin supports multiple payload formats that
are customized to be used by different services such as Slack,
Flowdock, etc. We don't support such payloads, so we should ignore
them and stick to parsing only the generic ones. We should also
notify that bot owner about the error.
Now reading API keys from a user is done with the get_api_key wrapper
method, rather than directly fetching it from the user object.
Also, every place where an action should be done for each API key is now
using get_all_api_keys. This method returns for the moment a single-item
list, containing the specified user's API key.
This commit is the first step towards allowing users have multiple API
keys.
This is a follow-up in response to Tim's comments on #9951.
In instances where all messages from a BitBucket integration are
grouped under one user specified topic (specified in the URL), we
should include the title of the 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 is a follow-up in response to Tim's comments on #9951.
In instances where all messages from a Gogs integration are
grouped under one user specified topic (specified in the URL), we
should include the title of the 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 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 is a follow-up in response to Tim's comments on #9951.
In instances where all messages from a Gitlab integration are
grouped under one user specified topic (specified in the URL), we
should include the title of the issue/MR 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).
We already include the issue title in the topic. But if one chooses
to group all gitlab notifications under one topic, the message body
is misleading in the sense that only the Issue ID and the description
are displayed, not the title, which isn't super helpful if the topic
doesn't tell you the title either.
I think we should err on the side of always including the title in
the main message body, which is what this commit does.
Fixes#9913.
The only changes visible at the AST level, checked using
https://github.com/asottile/astpretty, are
zerver/lib/test_fixtures.py:
'\x1b\\[(1|0)m' ↦ '\\x1b\\[(1|0)m'
'\\[[X| ]\\] (\\d+_.+)\n' ↦ '\\[[X| ]\\] (\\d+_.+)\\n'
which is fine because re treats '\\x1b' and '\\n' the same way as
'\x1b' and '\n'.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
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.
