3 Commits (bb6c670cff1a081d9f5f8bdb3dc91abe5d9e35b9)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
delvh	0f4e1b9ac6	Restructure `webhook` module (#22256) ... Previously, there was an `import services/webhooks` inside `modules/notification/webhook`. This import was removed (after fighting against many import cycles). Additionally, `modules/notification/webhook` was moved to `modules/webhook`, and a few structs/constants were extracted from `models/webhooks` to `modules/webhook`. Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de> Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>	2 years ago
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):  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