gitea

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
flynnnnnnnnnn	e81ccc406b	Implement FSFE REUSE for golang files (#21840 ) Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification. Fix #16132 Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github> Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>	2 years ago
oliverpool	b6e81357bd	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

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

flynnnnnnnnnn

e81ccc406b

Implement FSFE REUSE for golang files (#21840 )

Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.

Fix #16132

Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>

2 years ago

oliverpool

b6e81357bd

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

2 Commits (b76970f2e45d04d363fd6897439f111db24e4bca)