Git with a cup of tea, painless self-hosted git service Mirror for internal git.with.parts use https://git.with.parts
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
gitea/services/webhook/deliver_test.go

298 lines
8.1 KiB

// Copyright 2019 The Gitea Authors. All rights reserved.
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
package webhook
import (
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
"context"
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
"io"
"net/http"
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
"net/http/httptest"
"net/url"
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
"strings"
"testing"
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
"time"
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
"code.gitea.io/gitea/models/db"
"code.gitea.io/gitea/models/unittest"
webhook_model "code.gitea.io/gitea/models/webhook"
"code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/hostmatcher"
"code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/setting"
"code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/util"
webhook_module "code.gitea.io/gitea/modules/webhook"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/assert"
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
)
func TestWebhookProxy(t *testing.T) {
oldWebhook := setting.Webhook
t.Cleanup(func() {
setting.Webhook = oldWebhook
})
setting.Webhook.ProxyURL = "http://localhost:8080"
setting.Webhook.ProxyURLFixed, _ = url.Parse(setting.Webhook.ProxyURL)
setting.Webhook.ProxyHosts = []string{"*.discordapp.com", "discordapp.com"}
allowedHostMatcher := hostmatcher.ParseHostMatchList("webhook.ALLOWED_HOST_LIST", "discordapp.com,s.discordapp.com")
tests := []struct {
req string
want string
wantErr bool
}{
{
req: "https://discordapp.com/api/webhooks/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx",
want: "http://localhost:8080",
wantErr: false,
},
{
req: "http://s.discordapp.com/assets/xxxxxx",
want: "http://localhost:8080",
wantErr: false,
},
{
req: "http://github.com/a/b",
want: "",
wantErr: false,
},
{
req: "http://www.discordapp.com/assets/xxxxxx",
want: "",
wantErr: true,
},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.req, func(t *testing.T) {
req, err := http.NewRequest("POST", tt.req, nil)
require.NoError(t, err)
u, err := webhookProxy(allowedHostMatcher)(req)
if tt.wantErr {
assert.Error(t, err)
return
}
assert.NoError(t, err)
got := ""
if u != nil {
got = u.String()
}
assert.Equal(t, tt.want, got)
})
}
}
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
func TestWebhookDeliverAuthorizationHeader(t *testing.T) {
assert.NoError(t, unittest.PrepareTestDatabase())
done := make(chan struct{}, 1)
s := httptest.NewServer(http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
assert.Equal(t, "/webhook", r.URL.Path)
assert.Equal(t, "Bearer s3cr3t-t0ken", r.Header.Get("Authorization"))
w.WriteHeader(200)
done <- struct{}{}
}))
t.Cleanup(s.Close)
hook := &webhook_model.Webhook{
RepoID: 3,
URL: s.URL + "/webhook",
ContentType: webhook_model.ContentTypeJSON,
IsActive: true,
Type: webhook_module.GITEA,
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
}
err := hook.SetHeaderAuthorization("Bearer s3cr3t-t0ken")
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.NoError(t, webhook_model.CreateWebhook(db.DefaultContext, hook))
db.GetEngine(db.DefaultContext).NoAutoTime().DB().Logger.ShowSQL(true)
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
hookTask := &webhook_model.HookTask{
HookID: hook.ID,
EventType: webhook_module.HookEventPush,
PayloadVersion: 2,
}
hookTask, err = webhook_model.CreateHookTask(db.DefaultContext, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, err)
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
assert.NotNil(t, hookTask)
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
assert.NoError(t, Deliver(context.Background(), hookTask))
select {
case <-done:
case <-time.After(5 * time.Second):
t.Fatal("waited to long for request to happen")
}
assert.True(t, hookTask.IsSucceed)
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
assert.Equal(t, "******", hookTask.RequestInfo.Headers["Authorization"])
}
func TestWebhookDeliverHookTask(t *testing.T) {
assert.NoError(t, unittest.PrepareTestDatabase())
done := make(chan struct{}, 1)
s := httptest.NewServer(http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
assert.Equal(t, "PUT", r.Method)
switch r.URL.Path {
case "/webhook/66d222a5d6349e1311f551e50722d837e30fce98":
// Version 1
assert.Equal(t, "push", r.Header.Get("X-GitHub-Event"))
assert.Equal(t, "", r.Header.Get("Content-Type"))
body, err := io.ReadAll(r.Body)
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.Equal(t, `{"data": 42}`, string(body))
case "/webhook/6db5dc1e282529a8c162c7fe93dd2667494eeb51":
// Version 2
assert.Equal(t, "push", r.Header.Get("X-GitHub-Event"))
assert.Equal(t, "application/json", r.Header.Get("Content-Type"))
body, err := io.ReadAll(r.Body)
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.Len(t, body, 2147)
default:
w.WriteHeader(404)
t.Fatalf("unexpected url path %s", r.URL.Path)
return
}
w.WriteHeader(200)
done <- struct{}{}
}))
t.Cleanup(s.Close)
hook := &webhook_model.Webhook{
RepoID: 3,
IsActive: true,
Type: webhook_module.MATRIX,
URL: s.URL + "/webhook",
HTTPMethod: "PUT",
ContentType: webhook_model.ContentTypeJSON,
Meta: `{"message_type":0}`, // text
}
assert.NoError(t, webhook_model.CreateWebhook(db.DefaultContext, hook))
t.Run("Version 1", func(t *testing.T) {
hookTask := &webhook_model.HookTask{
HookID: hook.ID,
EventType: webhook_module.HookEventPush,
PayloadContent: `{"data": 42}`,
PayloadVersion: 1,
}
hookTask, err := webhook_model.CreateHookTask(db.DefaultContext, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.NotNil(t, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, Deliver(context.Background(), hookTask))
select {
case <-done:
case <-time.After(5 * time.Second):
t.Fatal("waited to long for request to happen")
}
assert.True(t, hookTask.IsSucceed)
})
t.Run("Version 2", func(t *testing.T) {
p := pushTestPayload()
data, err := p.JSONPayload()
assert.NoError(t, err)
hookTask := &webhook_model.HookTask{
HookID: hook.ID,
EventType: webhook_module.HookEventPush,
PayloadContent: string(data),
PayloadVersion: 2,
}
hookTask, err = webhook_model.CreateHookTask(db.DefaultContext, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.NotNil(t, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, Deliver(context.Background(), hookTask))
select {
case <-done:
case <-time.After(5 * time.Second):
t.Fatal("waited to long for request to happen")
}
assert.True(t, hookTask.IsSucceed)
})
}
func TestWebhookDeliverSpecificTypes(t *testing.T) {
assert.NoError(t, unittest.PrepareTestDatabase())
type hookCase struct {
gotBody chan []byte
httpMethod string // default to POST
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
}
cases := map[string]*hookCase{
webhook_module.SLACK: {},
webhook_module.DISCORD: {},
webhook_module.DINGTALK: {},
webhook_module.TELEGRAM: {},
webhook_module.MSTEAMS: {},
webhook_module.FEISHU: {},
webhook_module.MATRIX: {httpMethod: "PUT"},
webhook_module.WECHATWORK: {},
webhook_module.PACKAGIST: {},
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
}
s := httptest.NewServer(http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
typ := strings.Split(r.URL.Path, "/")[1] // URL: "/{webhook_type}/other-path"
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
assert.Equal(t, "application/json", r.Header.Get("Content-Type"), r.URL.Path)
assert.Equal(t, util.IfZero(cases[typ].httpMethod, "POST"), r.Method, "webhook test request %q", r.URL.Path)
body, _ := io.ReadAll(r.Body) // read request and send it back to the test by testcase's chan
cases[typ].gotBody <- body
w.WriteHeader(http.StatusNoContent)
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
}))
t.Cleanup(s.Close)
p := pushTestPayload()
data, err := p.JSONPayload()
assert.NoError(t, err)
for typ := range cases {
cases[typ].gotBody = make(chan []byte, 1)
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
t.Run(typ, func(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
hook := &webhook_model.Webhook{
RepoID: 3,
IsActive: true,
Type: typ,
URL: s.URL + "/" + typ,
Meta: "{}",
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
}
assert.NoError(t, webhook_model.CreateWebhook(db.DefaultContext, hook))
hookTask := &webhook_model.HookTask{
HookID: hook.ID,
EventType: webhook_module.HookEventPush,
PayloadContent: string(data),
PayloadVersion: 2,
}
hookTask, err := webhook_model.CreateHookTask(db.DefaultContext, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.NotNil(t, hookTask)
assert.NoError(t, Deliver(context.Background(), hookTask))
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
select {
case gotBody := <-cases[typ].gotBody:
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
assert.NotEqual(t, string(data), string(gotBody), "request body must be different from the event payload")
assert.Equal(t, hookTask.RequestInfo.Body, string(gotBody), "delivered webhook payload doesn't match saved request")
Store webhook event in database (#29145) Refactor the webhook logic, to have the type-dependent processing happen only in one place. --- ## Current webhook flow 1. An event happens 2. It is pre-processed (depending on the webhook type) and its body is added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, some more logic (depending on the webhook type as well) is applied to make an HTTP request This means that webhook-type dependant logic is needed in step 2 and 3. This is cumbersome and brittle to maintain. Updated webhook flow with this PR: 1. An event happens 2. It is stored as-is and added to a task queue 3. When the task is processed, the event is processed (depending on the webhook type) to make an HTTP request So the only webhook-type dependent logic happens in one place (step 3) which should be much more robust. ## Consequences of the refactor - the raw event must be stored in the hooktask (until now, the pre-processed body was stored) - to ensure that previous hooktasks are correctly sent, a `payload_version` is added (version 1: the body has already been pre-process / version 2: the body is the raw event) So future webhook additions will only have to deal with creating an http.Request based on the raw event (no need to adjust the code in multiple places, like currently). Moreover since this processing happens when fetching from the task queue, it ensures that the queuing of new events (upon a `git push` for instance) does not get slowed down by a slow webhook. As a concrete example, the PR #19307 for custom webhooks, should be substantially smaller: - no need to change `services/webhook/deliver.go` - minimal change in `services/webhook/webhook.go` (add the new webhook to the map) - no need to change all the individual webhook files (since with this refactor the `*webhook_model.Webhook` is provided as argument)
8 months ago
case <-time.After(5 * time.Second):
t.Fatal("waited to long for request to happen")
}
assert.True(t, hookTask.IsSucceed)
})
}
Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches): ![2022-08-23-142911](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3864879/186162483-5b721504-eef5-4932-812e-eb96a68494cc.png) The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
2 years ago
}